Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[womble]

Your move, Britain.

Please don't. Red rags to a bull is as nothing compared to a dare or challenge to Stupid. 

[assault]

 

 

Right now we have first past the post, and we have to, because we only have one seat per district.

 

Actually, you don't have to have first past the post. Preferential (instant run-off) systems give similar results, without the same degree of enforcement of a two-party system.

 

Having said that, the UK uses first past the post, but has a bunch of parties represented in Parliament. On the other hand, the connection between their representation and their share of the popular vote is sometimes dubious.

 

Several of the smaller parties are regional ones (Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru (Welsh), various Northern Irish parties), but other parties have managed to break through as well in particular areas.

 

The main thing seems to be organization on the ground, and a reflection of the social composition and interests of the constituency.

 

Australia uses a preferential system, and so isn't particularly relevant to the US case, but... Historically it has had three major parties, including separate rural and urban conservative parties. More recently, there has been an increasingly large proportion of minor party and independent candidates. Most of these are conservatives. While their voters were mainly originally disaffected supporters of the major parties, it seems to be becoming increasingly common for people to be committed followers of one or more of the minor parties. But as I mentioned, this is in a context of preferential voting, where such votes don't prevent the Lesser Evil from being elected.

 

The best way to force a change away from first past the post voting would be to establish relatively large third/fourth parties, whose votes can lose elections for the major parties, without being terrorized by "you elected Trump!" style attacks. Eventually, the major parties would probably decide that they actually need the "wasted" votes, and change the electoral system to co-opt them.

 

Not easy.

[death tribble]

Why not let Australia run America ?

[Old Man]

Because Australia still elects right wing lunatics?

[Lectryk]

And we don't? 

[Old Man]

Isn't that what we're hoping to avoid?

[gewing]

There's some question in my mind whether California will ever get any of that "grass tax" money. Marijuana is still illegal on the federal level, and the Trump base doesn't want to change that in the near future. If anything, the tendency of west coast states to take legalization of drugs into their own hands is something the people who are running Congress despise. Sometime soon the Supreme Court is going to be asked to rule on this issue, and it is possible (perhaps likely) they will rule that regulation of pharmaceuticals is a federal prerogative, marijuana is illegal nationally, and the people states had been counting on to pad their coffers are federal felons.

 

It depends, I suppose, how much revenge the red states want to take on the blue.

 

 

(Shrug) Colorado is banking it, and California is in good company. We'll get it until someone stops it.

 

 

California, Massachusetts, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and the District of Columbia allow recreational use. 28 states allow a medical use (including most recently Montana and Arkansas).

 

It's not entirely a blue state issue, and since I don't care that much about it except the tax revenue, I would be semi-delighted if it became a major point of debate/argument. Better to spend political capital on that than something dangerous.

as marijuana use is a disqualifier on the Federal BATF from 4473 from legal purchase of a firearm.  I strongly suspect the BATF has been told Hands OFF by the current administration, but...   

NOw, it could fall  under the same Supreme Court ruling that said it would be a 5th amendment violation to prosecute felons for lying on the 4473, but Trump does not seem to understand the Constitution or the role of the Supreme court very well. 

[gewing]

A rumor has come around that Paul Ryan is setting up to gut medicare and medicaid for old people. I hope this is true.

CES

I was thinking this morning that with both houses of COngress and the white house, they might well overextend so far that the backlash destroys them.  

[gewing]

Yep.  I've been saying this since Wednesday morning, and this is why I'm so angry with the Democratic party right now.  They, once again, put up a business-as-usual candidate that failed to inspire people to vote FOR her.  Instead, they were banking on people voting against Trump and that's a terrible strategy.  Voters want to be given a different choice, which is why Democrat voters either didn't show up or went 3rd party.  The sad thing is, it's not the first time they've done this and I fear they still haven't learned their lesson.  DNC leaders and pundits are already trying to blame the voters for not showing up rather than taking a hard look at themselves.

I see a lot of correlation to BUsh vs Gore, running a "look at that idiot, vote for me" campaign does not seem to work very well...

[gewing]

Let's pretend you're a red voter in a deep blue state, or vice versa. Your vote for president might make a difference one time every 40 years or so. Under a popular vote rule, it always counts.

it counts almost as much as my vote for Governor in WA.  Bryant was winning, until they started counting King COunty, and he got blown out.  OUr lords and masters have spoken again.  

 

Damnit.   

[gewing]

Clinton's not running any more. The future of the party is in flux. That said, my point remains valid. If you knew there was a candidate who planned to implement an agenda that would be a living nightmare for you, and another one you found distasteful but infinitely preferable to the former, and then you discovered that the chances of the former winning had increased considerably in the final week...and yet you chose to vote 3rd party in protest or stay home in protest of not having a better choice than the latter, you've really got no right to be shocked and dismayed that the living nightmare won, because you did absolutely nothing to prevent that from happening.

there is a reason I voted for someone who I personally dislike, over someone I personally, and philosophically, fear

[megaplayboy]

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

 

Interesting op-ed by Kurt Eichenwald.

[Old Man]

I was thinking this morning that with both houses of COngress and the white house, they might well overextend so far that the backlash destroys them.

They could not care less. This is the party that invented the Shock Doctrine. They will attempt to undo so much progress in the next two years that it will take decades to get back to where we are today. They'll cover with their propaganda channel, and lock it in with Supreme Court picks, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and general obstruction.

[Badger]

Finally, the only serious (?) comment I will make here.

 

About eight and a half years ago, kind of early-to-mid-summer of 2008, in I think a deleted 2008 election thread, I expressed reservations about both of the two Democratic front-running candidates, Obama and Ms Clinton. I had fears about Obama which, thankfully, did not happen. But I think I called Clinton correctly. I remember that I said "I think she's unelectable", because the Clinton name would be enough to trigger a generation of reinforced hate that it would bring out people who had never voted before and never would again, but would show up to vote against HER.

 

I wish I had not been so foresighted.

 

Nah, it isn't your problem being foresighted.  It is the DNC for taking it as a Cassandra (in reference to the myth, not our forum member  ).

[Badger]

it counts almost as much as my vote for Governor in WA.  Bryant was winning, until they started counting King COunty, and he got blown out.  OUr lords and masters have spoken again.  

 

Damnit.   

 

Yeah, in VA, the GOP candidate is almost always winning until they get to the DC neighboring counties who have oodles of govt workers and bureaucrats, then BOOM. 

 

Note: Actually for what it matters,Trump was leading by about 6 percent until then.

[薔薇語]

Since voter suppression gets talked about every once in a while and I am about to do a video on this topic for my youtube channel, I thought I might offer up this bit of "news" - Democratic voter suppression in California likely caused Sec. Clinton to win the popular vote. Yeah, you did not mis-read that. 

California passed a new law that stated the "primary" for statewide offices (Senator and Gov.) would be essentially run as a general election. The two highest vote recipients would move to the general election and no other candidates would be eligible. As it turned out, two Democratic Senators "won" the primary and the state had a choice between either a Democrat or a Democrat for Senate. It also turns out that this time around there was no race for governor. So the Republican voters of California were faced with two forces pushing down their vote: they are unlikely to ever sway the state electors and now demotivated to vote in the senate. 

It is no wonder that the state turn out this year was about 8% lower than in 08 - and by far the lowest in the last 4 presidential cycles. Also, the Republican turnout as a whole was down something akin to 7% from 8 years ago. While the overall rate of Republicans in Cal is obviously going to decrease with standard demographic changes, this kind of drop is quite sharp. If we were to bring up Republican voting shares in California by increase voter turnout (not by switching votes) just to 08 levels but kept the current distribution of Republican, Democratic, and Independent voters - President Elect Trump could have gained nearly a million more votes. Thus bringing the popular vote within a few 10s of thousands of votes one way or the other. 

It is also of interest that there was nearly a 3 million vote gap between total ballots cast and total presidential votes this year. That is an extremely strange occurrence. 

Of course the above does have its limitations. It rests largely on 2 assumptions (The total share of Republicans has NOT indeed dropped 7 percent in just 8 years) and the lack of a statewide Republican race drove down Republican enthusiasm by a significant degree (not enough to explain ALL absent votes, just about 1/3 of the missing votes). So it is speculative. But the bigger issue is less the results of this election but the possible impact of California's stupid election rules that create institutionalized 1 party states. 

 

Soar. 

 

[Nolgroth]

You forget that the Democrats gerrymandered the whole state in order to give themselves advantage in any election. It's one of the reasons that I hate gerrymandering far more than filibustering. But what do I know. I'm just an idiot conservative that lives in a blue state so I have a chance to see the ocean or enjoy the rich national & state park resources from time to time. I could move to a red state, but none of them border the ocean. Not to mention the whole idea of finding work and having an established plan that financially covers something as expensive as moving.

[Old Man]

You forget that the Democrats gerrymandered the whole state in order to give themselves advantage in any election.

Lol no. Proposition 11 in 2008 transferred redistricting power from the state legislature to an independent commission made up of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 unaffiliated members, most of whom were chosen by lot.

 

I should add that it was Schwarzenegger's idea to begin with.

[Old Man]

voter suppression in California likely caused Sec. Clinton to win the popular vote

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

In all seriousness, the reason this doesn't count as voter suppression is that it's evenhanded. There's nothing in California's election rules that would have prevented two Republicans from "winning" the state primary.

 

Contrast this with voter ID requirements that are proven to drive down voter turnout among the poor, to "solve" a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist. Or actual disinformation campaigns aimed at minority areas that advertise incorrect polling places and voting requirements.

 

If anything California's primary system is the first I've seen that could possibly give third parties a chance to win.

[Nolgroth]

Yeah. Schwarzenegger is a paragon of Conservative ideals. 

 

Five Republicans not pulled from the Central Valley or Northern California districts. All of them from Coastal (read Liberal/RINO) districts or Southern California. In fact, only two of the fourteen commissioners were from the Central Valley (Yolo County & San Joaquin). The appearance of impartiality that was anything but. So yeah. On the other hand, you are under no obligation to see it as I do. I will contend that the redistricting commission was nothing more than a shell game. 

[Sociotard]

And that's actually the beauty of the Californian system. Oregon rejected it, but I voted for it when it was there. If an area had enough Left-leaning people that they could split their vote and still completely shut out the republican, well, I don't think the republican had much of a shot.

 

Ah, but now the republicans can choose which democrat represents them.  Before, they'd still lose, but they'd lose to whoever the democrats fielded. Now, they can probably tip the scale.  Instead of having a super-left person like Chuck Schumer they can have a very moderate one like Claire McCaskill.

 

Of course, this falls apart if Republicans believe that all democrats are effectively the same. And that happens. The same people who can point out the diversity of the Republican Party, where a Hawk like McCain and an Isolationist like Ryan coexist, sometimes do say that all democrats are the same.

 

By extension, it falls apart if people aren't pragmatic. If you say you can't vote for someone who doesn't completely match your values. You can't vote for a moderate Democrat, even at the risk of representation by a super liberal one.  Well, welcome to the club. I hated voting for Hillary. She's a Hawk and she would have walked us into some stupid wars.  But I thought Donald was worse and so I did the Pragmatic thing.

 

I wholly endorse the Californian system. I wish it was more widespread. It brings out the Moderates. It rewards the Pragmatists.

[megaplayboy]

It also makes third party candidates more viable. After all, if they can come in 2nd place in an open primary, they can have a real shot in the general election, as opposed to having to compete against 2 major party candidates.

[Old Man]

Yeah. Schwarzenegger is a paragon of Conservative ideals. 

Today Schwarzenegger would be run out of today's GOP as a socialist libtard.

 

I will contend that the redistricting commission was nothing more than a shell game.

One that has withstood multiple reviews, audits, and lawsuits. And Snopes is a liberal conspiracy, right?

[薔薇語]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

It (purposely) drives down voter turnout for a whole swath of voters by reducing incentive. Senatorial races, even if foregone conclusions, still provide incentive for people to express themselves. It would be on part with banning all third party presidential races - voters who just don't want to put either candidate into office have absolutely no reason to show up. We can see this quite a bit in the current results. There were some 13 million votes cast this cycle. Senate Race only garnered 8.5 million votes. That totals just 2 million more than Secretary Clinton got in total.

 

Actually lets put this in even starker context. The Last US Senatorial election was in 2012. This was obviously a year of decent turnout for the President but of course senate races pull in less. But how much less was it in the last presidential run? It was 12.5 million. Almost as many people voted in the last Senate election as all total ballots in California this year. And that was 2.5 millions votes cast for Senate last time than were cast for President this time. Senate races in California draw in LOTS of voters. But surely that was just because President Obama was running, right? 

 

The Senate election prior to that was in 2010. This was obviously an off year as it was a midterm. Midterms tend to have much lower vote turnout than other times. In 2010 the total votes cast for Senator were about 9.5 million. That is more votes cast for the Republican and Democratic candidate for Senate than cast for the Republican and Democratic President this year! And while Senator Boxer did get 55% of the vote, the republican drew in 4.2 Million votes. 

 

The Senate helps bring in voters who would otherwise stay home. We can see that we had a decline in voter turnout by 13% from 2010 and 33% from 2012. This system drives down voter engagement. And reinforces a defacto one party rule. The Republicans in times before had a real struggle in trying to convince independents and Democrats to switch to them. Now they must not only do that but also convince no other republicans to run against them. The moment two Republicans enter the race, the Democrats essentially win both seats. Why so? Having a split primary drives up voters as voters can sense a chance to influence things. Democratic candidates can afford to split their vote because they know with voter increase they can take the loss. The republicans can not because if their lead candidate loses even 5% of the share to another Republican, they have lost any chance. But of course by not having a chance to rally behind the anointed candidate, the Republican base is less engergized and that lowers voter turnout. 

 

And don't give me this BS about it helping 3rd parties. This is perhaps one of the biggest shames against third parties. The general election is where most voter turnout occurs and most voter engagement happens. As was being pointed out this year by Dr. Stein and Gov. Johnson, being at the (debate) table drives voters. Simply being able to get your name and the brand recognition for your party out there is important. This system sets up the only chance for third party candidates to the time of the year when those interested in fewer numbers and make up an even more partisan constituency. It blocks third party access to the ballot more than the traditional set up. 

 

The reason this is voter suppression is because of the large scale effect it has on particular groups. For the most part Voter IDs and such are not an impossible challenge. They do require a couple extra steps of work. By putting that barrier there, even if minor, it does drive down voter turnout. And we know that the turnout it drives down belongs to typically minority voters. This Senate system purposely put in a barrier by disenfranchising Republicans and 3rd party candidates. 

 

Soar. 

 

 

 

[Ternaugh]

Yeah. Schwarzenegger is a paragon of Conservative ideals. 

 

Five Republicans not pulled from the Central Valley or Northern California districts. All of them from Coastal (read Liberal/RINO) districts or Southern California. In fact, only two of the fourteen commissioners were from the Central Valley (Yolo County & San Joaquin). The appearance of impartiality that was anything but. So yeah. On the other hand, you are under no obligation to see it as I do. I will contend that the redistricting commission was nothing more than a shell game. 

 

Good Heavens! RINOs! Whatever will we do with moderate Republicans?

 

 

 

Oh, wait, I'm using one as my avatar. Never mind.