|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 25 2022 02:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 01:42 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 00:08 Simberto wrote:On March 24 2022 21:33 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 20:27 Zambrah wrote:On March 24 2022 19:56 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 15:34 Zambrah wrote:On March 24 2022 07:02 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 02:57 Zambrah wrote:
Sure but in a hypothetical world where Democrats are actually entirely incompetent rather than just kind of incompetent and majorly disingenuous they should stop their spoilers. If I presume they’re all entirely disingenuous then the only thing I have left to advocate for is people throwing bricks at Joe Manchin and his daughter’s cars, boats, and houses, and throwing eggs and milkshakes at Joe Manchin and his rotten daughter.
I like to be hopeful at times, it’s a fatal character flaw in this world The kind of Democrat you would vote for would never get elected in West Virginia so all you're doing is electing a Republican instead. It’s harder for a Republican Republican to make Democrats look bad than it is for a Republican Democrat to make Democrats look bad On the flip side, a Republican Republican will always try to make Democrats look bad, while a Republican Democrat is not always trying to do that. A Republican Republican will never have the credibility to make a Democrat look bad the way a Republican Democrat does. Democrats cant cry "Republicans block us!" when Republicans arent blocking them, instead Democrats are blocking Democrats which makes Democrats look weak and incompetent. The solution to Manchin blocking Democrats is to elect more Democrats, not less though. You'd best be looking in another state that doesn't vote 70% Trump. Yes, that would be the solution, but that is not how people react. People see democrats in power with a majority in both houses, but not accomplishing anything. Sure, the sane thing to do would be to elect more people you like, but the reaction by a lot of people is to just stop giving a fuck and stopping to vote, since it doesn't seem to matter anyways. On the other hand, US politics are just insane. I still cannot accept that republicans are a relevant force in the country. They should be some 5% fringe party instead of one of the two dominant/only ones. Im not sure electing more Democrats is a proper solution though, sure Manchin and Sinema are the hyper-visual spoilers, but I also look to votes on things like the 15 dollar minimum wage where EIGHT Democrats voted against it. Two of whom are the Democrats from fuckin DELAWARE. Ive harped on this before but the fact that two Senators that are from Biden's state voting No says that Biden actually didnt want it, if the sitting president from your state calls and asks you to do something you do that something because that sitting president owns your next elections results for you. How many more Democrats are needed before you scrape out a 51 - 50 Majority against Republicans? Do we need 60? What happens when oops you get a Sinema style Spoiler that was lying the whole time and always planned to be a spoiler in order to get pharma money? The number of Democrats needed to fill both houses and be able to defeat spoilers is ludicrous and expecting or hoping for those numbers to happen is a fairy tale when people see "We elected Democrats to both houses and the Presidency and they spent the time in fighting and not fulfilling campaign promises." There is no simple answer to politics in the US that doesnt in some way involve violence, either the big organized kind, the throwing bricks at politicians houses kind, or the beat strikers to death so they get back to work kind. I think a lot of problems in the US come from the fact that republicans are not a fringe party. That flattens all of the rest of the political spectrum. In a sane setup, democrats would be 3-4 different parties. In the US, you don't really have a choice, because one of the two sole choices is an insane fascist. This enables a lot of bullshit from democrats, because you really cannot do anything. No matter what you want or believe, you can still only vote for the democrats. No matter how ineffective or corrupt they are, the republicans are still worse. And democrats know this. There is no incentive for them to stop being shit, because the people who care the most have no choice but to vote for them.
It's a feature, not a bug. It's part of why Biden said the US needs the Republican party.
edit: As far as I'm concerned the conclusion that there's nothing to do but keep voting for crappy Democrats is a lie that is meant to keep people docile.
|
The idea that politicians are simply voted out if they don't do what their constituents want is such an oversimplification of modern politics. It's almost as bad as when capitalists act like capitalism in the modern world is this purely fair system where the better coffee shop will always beat out the other coffee shop, ignoring corporations, horizontal and vertical integration, differences in advertising budgets, etc. Both are so far removed from reality that it's hard for me to take serious.
|
On March 25 2022 04:13 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 04:03 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 03:35 Zambrah wrote:
Politicians lie and break promises all the time, they wont stop til there are consequences (and Senators cant be impeached so youre in it you win it basically, lol) Yeah, and the consequences are you vote out the people who don't vote to abuse the filibuster and vote in those who say you would. Same issue in any democracy. You can't have them lock in a pre-vote. But then it gets to the complicated money-in-politics, first-past-the-post two-party problems with that, elections in the US aren't as simple as being purely about voting in the US. Candidates with lots of money, lots of political backing, these are often the same types who also lie and sell out their constituencies but what can you do? They have enormous colossal advantages against any decent person because theyre structurally advantaged. You cant challenge them from outside the party, so you have to challenge them from within where entrenched and corrupt party leaders have near absolute levels of control, because then what, youre going to vote Republican? Can't, the Democrats OWN your vote and you either eat their shit or you get nothing. When Democrats expel their spoilers from the party or entirely cut them off from electoral support and actually damn their election chances then there will be the start of consequences. At this point the "just vote" argument is libertarian levels of idealism, human beings arent rational and things arent as easy as just-vote-whats-so-hard-about-that.
That kind of defeatist attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. If getting rid of the filibuster is incredibly important to voters, then you can primary that incumbent for breaking his word.
Voters have to expel the spoilers from the party if the Democrats won't. You have to make that issue paramount. Voters have to consistently vote left to get the spoilers from playing ball. The filibuster has to be the most important issue.
The actual problem its hard to articulate that as part of messaging. Republicans have a way easier job at moaning about woke mobs than liberals have with articulating the filibuster problem.
If it helps, I think most democrats see how polarized the nation has become and see the need for removing the filibuster. You could work through the filibuster during the 90s and aughts. I don't think anyone thinks you can now.
|
It'd be a lot better if voting was made mandatory like it is in Australia. Here we don't have a right to vote, we have a duty to vote. This forces everyone to at least pay some attention attention to politics and politicians can't only cater to their base.
|
We have mandatory voting in Brazil but I'm ambivalent towards it. I feel it increases the importance of money in politics because it takes less marketing effort to convince someone to vote for a specific candidate if he isn't really interested in politics in the first place. At least it solves the problem of voting apathy being unequaly distributed throughout the population groups.
|
On March 25 2022 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 02:43 Simberto wrote:On March 25 2022 01:42 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 00:08 Simberto wrote:On March 24 2022 21:33 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 20:27 Zambrah wrote:On March 24 2022 19:56 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 15:34 Zambrah wrote:On March 24 2022 07:02 gobbledydook wrote:On March 24 2022 02:57 Zambrah wrote:
Sure but in a hypothetical world where Democrats are actually entirely incompetent rather than just kind of incompetent and majorly disingenuous they should stop their spoilers. If I presume they’re all entirely disingenuous then the only thing I have left to advocate for is people throwing bricks at Joe Manchin and his daughter’s cars, boats, and houses, and throwing eggs and milkshakes at Joe Manchin and his rotten daughter.
I like to be hopeful at times, it’s a fatal character flaw in this world The kind of Democrat you would vote for would never get elected in West Virginia so all you're doing is electing a Republican instead. It’s harder for a Republican Republican to make Democrats look bad than it is for a Republican Democrat to make Democrats look bad On the flip side, a Republican Republican will always try to make Democrats look bad, while a Republican Democrat is not always trying to do that. A Republican Republican will never have the credibility to make a Democrat look bad the way a Republican Democrat does. Democrats cant cry "Republicans block us!" when Republicans arent blocking them, instead Democrats are blocking Democrats which makes Democrats look weak and incompetent. The solution to Manchin blocking Democrats is to elect more Democrats, not less though. You'd best be looking in another state that doesn't vote 70% Trump. Yes, that would be the solution, but that is not how people react. People see democrats in power with a majority in both houses, but not accomplishing anything. Sure, the sane thing to do would be to elect more people you like, but the reaction by a lot of people is to just stop giving a fuck and stopping to vote, since it doesn't seem to matter anyways. On the other hand, US politics are just insane. I still cannot accept that republicans are a relevant force in the country. They should be some 5% fringe party instead of one of the two dominant/only ones. Im not sure electing more Democrats is a proper solution though, sure Manchin and Sinema are the hyper-visual spoilers, but I also look to votes on things like the 15 dollar minimum wage where EIGHT Democrats voted against it. Two of whom are the Democrats from fuckin DELAWARE. Ive harped on this before but the fact that two Senators that are from Biden's state voting No says that Biden actually didnt want it, if the sitting president from your state calls and asks you to do something you do that something because that sitting president owns your next elections results for you. How many more Democrats are needed before you scrape out a 51 - 50 Majority against Republicans? Do we need 60? What happens when oops you get a Sinema style Spoiler that was lying the whole time and always planned to be a spoiler in order to get pharma money? The number of Democrats needed to fill both houses and be able to defeat spoilers is ludicrous and expecting or hoping for those numbers to happen is a fairy tale when people see "We elected Democrats to both houses and the Presidency and they spent the time in fighting and not fulfilling campaign promises." There is no simple answer to politics in the US that doesnt in some way involve violence, either the big organized kind, the throwing bricks at politicians houses kind, or the beat strikers to death so they get back to work kind. I think a lot of problems in the US come from the fact that republicans are not a fringe party. That flattens all of the rest of the political spectrum. In a sane setup, democrats would be 3-4 different parties. In the US, you don't really have a choice, because one of the two sole choices is an insane fascist. This enables a lot of bullshit from democrats, because you really cannot do anything. No matter what you want or believe, you can still only vote for the democrats. No matter how ineffective or corrupt they are, the republicans are still worse. And democrats know this. There is no incentive for them to stop being shit, because the people who care the most have no choice but to vote for them. It's a feature, not a bug. It's part of why Biden said the US needs the Republican party. edit: As far as I'm concerned the conclusion that there's nothing to do but keep voting for crappy Democrats is a lie that is meant to keep people docile.
I agree with you on the not voting for crappy democrats anymore especially after all the broken promises the last year + including student loan forgiveness.
They're better than Republicans sure, but the lesser of two evils is still evil. Candidates need to actually represent some of my interests or come through on some of their campaign promises that affect me if they want my vote.
|
The lesser of evil is still evil….but at least one party isnt run by a cargo cult trying to subvert democracy. I think he answer is to primary the fuck out of democrats you dont like. I don’t think a politician failing to deliver because we’re under the weight of the filibuster is the same thing as a party run by a bunch of zealot homophobes who don’t believe in science or climate change.
|
On March 25 2022 12:01 lestye wrote:
The lesser of evil is still evil….but at least one party isnt run by a cargo cult trying to subvert democracy. I think he answer is to primary the fuck out of democrats you dont like. I don’t think a politician failing to deliver because we’re under the weight of the filibuster is the same thing as a party run by a bunch of zealot homophobes who don’t believe in science or climate change.
That’s my perspective as well. Primaries are when you wave the communist flag. After that, you put your Spock glasses on and just go with pure logic. Unless you live in a safe state. If you live in a safe state, like I do, you continue to be full ass communist and stay home etc
I think in an ideal scenario, Oregon is BARELY won by Biden in 2024. Like by 4 votes. He still needs to win, but I want democrats to be shitting their pants realizing people will actually give the party the finger.
|
On March 24 2022 17:29 Starlightsun wrote:
Man the child porn theatrics at the KBJ confirmation hearings are so... characteristic. Can just see them in the strategy room, "pizzagate worked pretty good, let's plant those seeds again and harvest in November."
Also, Ted Cruz being Ted Cruz. Yikes.
|
Does Ted Cruz have a challenger? Cant wait for him to become a full time podcaster.
|
On March 25 2022 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 12:01 lestye wrote:
The lesser of evil is still evil….but at least one party isnt run by a cargo cult trying to subvert democracy. I think he answer is to primary the fuck out of democrats you dont like. I don’t think a politician failing to deliver because we’re under the weight of the filibuster is the same thing as a party run by a bunch of zealot homophobes who don’t believe in science or climate change. That’s my perspective as well. Primaries are when you wave the communist flag. After that, you put your Spock glasses on and just go with pure logic. Unless you live in a safe state. If you live in a safe state, like I do, you continue to be full ass communist and stay home etc I think in an ideal scenario, Oregon is BARELY won by Biden in 2024. Like by 4 votes. He still needs to win, but I want democrats to be shitting their pants realizing people will actually give the party the finger.
I think your views would be better described as social-democrat.
|
On March 25 2022 07:48 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 04:13 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 04:03 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 03:35 Zambrah wrote:
Politicians lie and break promises all the time, they wont stop til there are consequences (and Senators cant be impeached so youre in it you win it basically, lol) Yeah, and the consequences are you vote out the people who don't vote to abuse the filibuster and vote in those who say you would. Same issue in any democracy. You can't have them lock in a pre-vote. But then it gets to the complicated money-in-politics, first-past-the-post two-party problems with that, elections in the US aren't as simple as being purely about voting in the US. Candidates with lots of money, lots of political backing, these are often the same types who also lie and sell out their constituencies but what can you do? They have enormous colossal advantages against any decent person because theyre structurally advantaged. You cant challenge them from outside the party, so you have to challenge them from within where entrenched and corrupt party leaders have near absolute levels of control, because then what, youre going to vote Republican? Can't, the Democrats OWN your vote and you either eat their shit or you get nothing. When Democrats expel their spoilers from the party or entirely cut them off from electoral support and actually damn their election chances then there will be the start of consequences. At this point the "just vote" argument is libertarian levels of idealism, human beings arent rational and things arent as easy as just-vote-whats-so-hard-about-that. That kind of defeatist attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. If getting rid of the filibuster is incredibly important to voters, then you can primary that incumbent for breaking his word. Voters have to expel the spoilers from the party if the Democrats won't. You have to make that issue paramount. Voters have to consistently vote left to get the spoilers from playing ball. The filibuster has to be the most important issue. The actual problem its hard to articulate that as part of messaging. Republicans have a way easier job at moaning about woke mobs than liberals have with articulating the filibuster problem. If it helps, I think most democrats see how polarized the nation has become and see the need for removing the filibuster. You could work through the filibuster during the 90s and aughts. I don't think anyone thinks you can now.
It’s only defeatist if you see electoral politics as the only politics. 
|
On March 25 2022 15:51 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 07:48 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 04:13 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 04:03 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 03:35 Zambrah wrote:
Politicians lie and break promises all the time, they wont stop til there are consequences (and Senators cant be impeached so youre in it you win it basically, lol) Yeah, and the consequences are you vote out the people who don't vote to abuse the filibuster and vote in those who say you would. Same issue in any democracy. You can't have them lock in a pre-vote. But then it gets to the complicated money-in-politics, first-past-the-post two-party problems with that, elections in the US aren't as simple as being purely about voting in the US. Candidates with lots of money, lots of political backing, these are often the same types who also lie and sell out their constituencies but what can you do? They have enormous colossal advantages against any decent person because theyre structurally advantaged. You cant challenge them from outside the party, so you have to challenge them from within where entrenched and corrupt party leaders have near absolute levels of control, because then what, youre going to vote Republican? Can't, the Democrats OWN your vote and you either eat their shit or you get nothing. When Democrats expel their spoilers from the party or entirely cut them off from electoral support and actually damn their election chances then there will be the start of consequences. At this point the "just vote" argument is libertarian levels of idealism, human beings arent rational and things arent as easy as just-vote-whats-so-hard-about-that. That kind of defeatist attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. If getting rid of the filibuster is incredibly important to voters, then you can primary that incumbent for breaking his word. Voters have to expel the spoilers from the party if the Democrats won't. You have to make that issue paramount. Voters have to consistently vote left to get the spoilers from playing ball. The filibuster has to be the most important issue. The actual problem its hard to articulate that as part of messaging. Republicans have a way easier job at moaning about woke mobs than liberals have with articulating the filibuster problem. If it helps, I think most democrats see how polarized the nation has become and see the need for removing the filibuster. You could work through the filibuster during the 90s and aughts. I don't think anyone thinks you can now. It’s only defeatist if you see electoral politics as the only politics.
What's the alternative to electoral politics? Violent revolution?
|
On March 25 2022 16:08 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 15:51 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 07:48 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 04:13 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 04:03 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 03:35 Zambrah wrote:
Politicians lie and break promises all the time, they wont stop til there are consequences (and Senators cant be impeached so youre in it you win it basically, lol) Yeah, and the consequences are you vote out the people who don't vote to abuse the filibuster and vote in those who say you would. Same issue in any democracy. You can't have them lock in a pre-vote. But then it gets to the complicated money-in-politics, first-past-the-post two-party problems with that, elections in the US aren't as simple as being purely about voting in the US. Candidates with lots of money, lots of political backing, these are often the same types who also lie and sell out their constituencies but what can you do? They have enormous colossal advantages against any decent person because theyre structurally advantaged. You cant challenge them from outside the party, so you have to challenge them from within where entrenched and corrupt party leaders have near absolute levels of control, because then what, youre going to vote Republican? Can't, the Democrats OWN your vote and you either eat their shit or you get nothing. When Democrats expel their spoilers from the party or entirely cut them off from electoral support and actually damn their election chances then there will be the start of consequences. At this point the "just vote" argument is libertarian levels of idealism, human beings arent rational and things arent as easy as just-vote-whats-so-hard-about-that. That kind of defeatist attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. If getting rid of the filibuster is incredibly important to voters, then you can primary that incumbent for breaking his word. Voters have to expel the spoilers from the party if the Democrats won't. You have to make that issue paramount. Voters have to consistently vote left to get the spoilers from playing ball. The filibuster has to be the most important issue. The actual problem its hard to articulate that as part of messaging. Republicans have a way easier job at moaning about woke mobs than liberals have with articulating the filibuster problem. If it helps, I think most democrats see how polarized the nation has become and see the need for removing the filibuster. You could work through the filibuster during the 90s and aughts. I don't think anyone thinks you can now. It’s only defeatist if you see electoral politics as the only politics. What's the alternative to electoral politics? Violent revolution?
Harassing your representatives in public and at home, making their lives as miserable as possible in public, blowing air horns at their homes in the middle of the night, vandalism, etc
Striking and economic cooperation between the under classes, making sure politicians donors are affected, unionization and weaponizing your union against the shitty politicians, etc
Violent revolution also works though, hopefully they’d get the picture before we reach that point but is it possible to underestimate how out of touch the geriatrics in charge of the US are?
|
On March 25 2022 16:08 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 15:51 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 07:48 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 04:13 Zambrah wrote:On March 25 2022 04:03 lestye wrote:On March 25 2022 03:35 Zambrah wrote:
Politicians lie and break promises all the time, they wont stop til there are consequences (and Senators cant be impeached so youre in it you win it basically, lol) Yeah, and the consequences are you vote out the people who don't vote to abuse the filibuster and vote in those who say you would. Same issue in any democracy. You can't have them lock in a pre-vote. But then it gets to the complicated money-in-politics, first-past-the-post two-party problems with that, elections in the US aren't as simple as being purely about voting in the US. Candidates with lots of money, lots of political backing, these are often the same types who also lie and sell out their constituencies but what can you do? They have enormous colossal advantages against any decent person because theyre structurally advantaged. You cant challenge them from outside the party, so you have to challenge them from within where entrenched and corrupt party leaders have near absolute levels of control, because then what, youre going to vote Republican? Can't, the Democrats OWN your vote and you either eat their shit or you get nothing. When Democrats expel their spoilers from the party or entirely cut them off from electoral support and actually damn their election chances then there will be the start of consequences. At this point the "just vote" argument is libertarian levels of idealism, human beings arent rational and things arent as easy as just-vote-whats-so-hard-about-that. That kind of defeatist attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. If getting rid of the filibuster is incredibly important to voters, then you can primary that incumbent for breaking his word. Voters have to expel the spoilers from the party if the Democrats won't. You have to make that issue paramount. Voters have to consistently vote left to get the spoilers from playing ball. The filibuster has to be the most important issue. The actual problem its hard to articulate that as part of messaging. Republicans have a way easier job at moaning about woke mobs than liberals have with articulating the filibuster problem. If it helps, I think most democrats see how polarized the nation has become and see the need for removing the filibuster. You could work through the filibuster during the 90s and aughts. I don't think anyone thinks you can now. It’s only defeatist if you see electoral politics as the only politics. What's the alternative to electoral politics? Violent revolution?
Revolutionary politics*. Violence is a technique or tool, one the status quo utilizes/exacerbates daily.
The US government and the capitalist class has exhaustively demonstrated it will violently oppose even moderate reforms, it's a bit silly to believe they won't also/continue to violently oppose more comprehensive changes.
|
Just wondering: how many people need to support your cause, in order for revolutionary politics to be justified?
|
|
|
On March 25 2022 09:59 Sbrubbles wrote:
We have mandatory voting in Brazil but I'm ambivalent towards it. I feel it increases the importance of money in politics because it takes less marketing effort to convince someone to vote for a specific candidate if he isn't really interested in politics in the first place. At least it solves the problem of voting apathy being unequaly distributed throughout the population groups.
The key thing that compulsory voting does is remove turnout from play. There is no longer any incentive to prevent your opponents' voters from showing up, which removes a lot of the most underhanded nonsense that goes on.
I used to dislike it on the basis that people showing up because they have to are probably not making informed choices, but these days I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
|
On March 25 2022 22:20 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 09:59 Sbrubbles wrote:
We have mandatory voting in Brazil but I'm ambivalent towards it. I feel it increases the importance of money in politics because it takes less marketing effort to convince someone to vote for a specific candidate if he isn't really interested in politics in the first place. At least it solves the problem of voting apathy being unequaly distributed throughout the population groups.
The key thing that compulsory voting does is remove turnout from play. There is no longer any incentive to prevent your opponents' voters from showing up, which removes a lot of the most underhanded nonsense that goes on. I used to dislike it on the basis that people showing up because they have to are probably not making informed choices, but these days I think the positives outweigh the negatives. You underestimate the Republicans.
They would keep trying to prevent African Americans people from voting so they could then charge them with failing to vote and permanently remove their ability to vote in the future because they are now a convicted felon.
|
On March 25 2022 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2022 22:20 Belisarius wrote:On March 25 2022 09:59 Sbrubbles wrote:
We have mandatory voting in Brazil but I'm ambivalent towards it. I feel it increases the importance of money in politics because it takes less marketing effort to convince someone to vote for a specific candidate if he isn't really interested in politics in the first place. At least it solves the problem of voting apathy being unequaly distributed throughout the population groups.
The key thing that compulsory voting does is remove turnout from play. There is no longer any incentive to prevent your opponents' voters from showing up, which removes a lot of the most underhanded nonsense that goes on. I used to dislike it on the basis that people showing up because they have to are probably not making informed choices, but these days I think the positives outweigh the negatives. You underestimate the Republicans. They would keep trying to prevent African Americans people from voting so they could then charge them with failing to vote and permanently remove their ability to vote in the future because they are now a convicted felon.
Nah, in Australia all that happens if you don't vote is you get fined 20 dollars.
We vote on Saturdays though, and you can vote early, or vote by mail if you can't make it on voting day. So the whole system is designed so that it's really hard to not be able to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
