So what is the reason for having to register to vote? As in the argument for it?
Why wouldn't every eligible voter be registered as a voter by being an eligible citizen?
Because 1) it's all left up to the states 2) it can be left up to a completely absurd political process. Otherwise, voting would/should be treated like the duty and right that it is. You hear from some people, some politicians, they will tell you voting is a privilege. Which is fucking absurd.
Yes, you may be one of those countries where it's a duty? Definitely should be the case everywhere.
No. Not a duty, if I read the word correctly. You are not forced to. You can stay home. Or make a point by not voting. Only 87% voted last election.
But every citizen can show up with their ID (drivers license, passport etc) to their local voting locale, and leave a ballot on or some day that suits them before election day.
Being a citizen = you are eligable to vote and have a local voting locale designated to you Show ID = your name will be checked off on a list of the names designated to that voting locale, and your ballot will be put in the box
And election day is always on a Sunday - where the most people are free from work.
I guess a right, duty I see as almost the same. Sure, you shouldn't go to jail or something if you don't vote.
My belief is if you can automatically be drafted at 18 to go to war, then you should be automatically be registered to vote. Voting should not be an inconvenience, nor a challenge, to the voter. We should all be automatically be sent a ballot and the voting window should be at least a week, if not a month. As ideal as I would like to think everyone will be off to vote on a Sunday it's not realistic - people get screwed by having one day to vote.
In Sweden you have 18 days to vote, but the actual election day (last day of voting) is on a Sunday.
Ofc you should be eligible/register to vote automatically just by being a citizen.
Don't see why it should be any other way if one wants to be called a democracy.
But don't wanna come off as I'm dunking on the US and get PM:s about it. So will end the discussion. Maybe there are super-duper great reasons for having to jump through hoops to vote.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. This give our elected representatives greater power to make voting more difficult.
Seems you guys mix and match between the two in discussions.
Not to open the pandoras box again on here about Obama having the wrong facts:
Representative democracy, to be exact
It’s great that SC is back, but he cut out the essential portion of my comment.
I was referring to the Supreme Court and the final say on our laws, such as voting laws.
As you know, The people do not have direct access to vote for this branch of govt. Only the senate and electoral college have a voice, institutions that give more power to acreage than people.
So that's an interesting point. Now I admit I have not read all of the Federalist (or the anti-Federalist) papers, but the concept of the SCOTUS having final say in laws was not necessarily enshrined in the Constitution, it's more Marbury v Madison that set the precedent and the two other branches acquiesced to that concept.
They don’t have final say. The congress can take the issue up and rewrite the law and pass legislation and state legislatures may do the same. Rinse, wash, repeat. It should lead to at least two things, evolution of legally binding concepts and a more knowledgeable populace regarding issues near and dear. The founders made it deliberately slow and history shows the Government Is traditionally behind the will of the people, time wise.
Voted in person last Friday. Took a whole of 10 minutes from the time I left my house to pressing the “cast ballot” button. Easy Peesy!
if biden wins, i sincerely hope he enacts some type of election reform. not just the electoral college (if he can), but also presidential elections at the state level. these asshole republicans being allowed to basically suppress the vote and gerrymander their areas so they never lose is absurd.
The gerrymandering is a little absurd, I agree, but I don’t see the electoral college going away and I don’t think it should. It may need some reform, but we are not a direct democracy and our union of states would not function too well in that environment in my opinion.
one reform is proportional electoral votes....
would mean a more national focus on more states than just a handful....
I agree about proportional allocation of a State's EC votes (and I do actually believe in the merit of the EC). I'm not sure the model that Maine and Arizona use would help any, but I feel a true proportional allocation, if adopted by all States, would help the system. With that said, like so many system reforms, it's the underdogs who are energized to get them done. Those with power never relinquish it willingly.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So what is the reason for having to register to vote? As in the argument for it?
Why wouldn't every eligible voter be registered as a voter by being an eligible citizen?
Because 1) it's all left up to the states 2) it can be left up to a completely absurd political process. Otherwise, voting would/should be treated like the duty and right that it is. You hear from some people, some politicians, they will tell you voting is a privilege. Which is fucking absurd.
Yes, you may be one of those countries where it's a duty? Definitely should be the case everywhere.
No. Not a duty, if I read the word correctly. You are not forced to. You can stay home. Or make a point by not voting. Only 87% voted last election.
But every citizen can show up with their ID (drivers license, passport etc) to their local voting locale, and leave a ballot on or some day that suits them before election day.
Being a citizen = you are eligable to vote and have a local voting locale designated to you Show ID = your name will be checked off on a list of the names designated to that voting locale, and your ballot will be put in the box
And election day is always on a Sunday - where the most people are free from work.
I guess a right, duty I see as almost the same. Sure, you shouldn't go to jail or something if you don't vote.
My belief is if you can automatically be drafted at 18 to go to war, then you should be automatically be registered to vote. Voting should not be an inconvenience, nor a challenge, to the voter. We should all be automatically be sent a ballot and the voting window should be at least a week, if not a month. As ideal as I would like to think everyone will be off to vote on a Sunday it's not realistic - people get screwed by having one day to vote.
In Sweden you have 18 days to vote, but the actual election day (last day of voting) is on a Sunday.
Ofc you should be eligible/register to vote automatically just by being a citizen.
Don't see why it should be any other way if one wants to be called a democracy.
But don't wanna come off as I'm dunking on the US and get PM:s about it. So will end the discussion. Maybe there are super-duper great reasons for having to jump through hoops to vote.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. This give our elected representatives greater power to make voting more difficult.
Seems you guys mix and match between the two in discussions.
Not to open the pandoras box again on here about Obama having the wrong facts:
Representative democracy, to be exact
It’s great that SC is back, but he cut out the essential portion of my comment.
I was referring to the Supreme Court and the final say on our laws, such as voting laws.
As you know, The people do not have direct access to vote for this branch of govt. Only the senate and electoral college have a voice, institutions that give more power to acreage than people.
So that's an interesting point. Now I admit I have not read all of the Federalist (or the anti-Federalist) papers, but the concept of the SCOTUS having final say in laws was not necessarily enshrined in the Constitution, it's more Marbury v Madison that set the precedent and the two other branches acquiesced to that concept.
They don’t have final say. The congress can take the issue up and rewrite the law and pass legislation and state legislatures may do the same. Rinse, wash, repeat. It should lead to at least two things, evolution of legally binding concepts and a more knowledgeable populace regarding issues near and dear. The founders made it deliberately slow and history shows the Government Is traditionally behind the will of the people, time wise.
Well sure. They are the final arbiters of what's constitutional and what isn't. Yes, congress or a state can adjust laws if they are stricken down, but the entire process wasn't enshrined in the constitution. The concept that the constitution is the fundamental law and the SCOTUS has that say is from the case.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
A Latinos for Trump rally in Miami on Sunday.Mario Cruz/EPA, via Shutterstock
The Latino gender gap
It’s not just the public polls. Recent private polls conducted by political campaigns are filled with bad news for President Trump. He is doing eight to 10 percentage points worse in many congressional districts than he did in 2016, Dave Wasserman of The Cook Political Report writes.
His struggles have jeopardized the Republicans’ Senate majority and will probably lead to further Democratic gains in the House. “It would be a pleasant surprise if we only lost 10 House seats,” one Republican member of Congress told The Cook Political Report.
But there is one exception, and it will be familiar to regular readers of this newsletter: Trump and other Republicans don’t seem to be doing worse among Latino voters than in 2016. Nationwide, Republicans are still winning about one-third of the Latino vote, polls show.
As a result, Trump still has a good chance to win both Florida and Texas. Similarly, Senator John Cornyn of Texas continues to lead narrowly in his own re-election race, and House Republicans could hold onto districts in California, Florida and Texas.
Why is Trump holding steady with Latinos? There is no one answer, partly because Latinos are such a diverse group (many of whom also identify as white). But an important part of the explanation appears to involve gender.
Recent Times polls of battleground states show that the gender gap among Latino voters — 26 percentage points — is significantly larger than it is among Black, white or Asian voters:
By The New York Times | Source: New York Times/Siena College polls of 18 battleground states since September.
Among Latina women, Biden leads Trump by a whopping 34 percentage points (59 percent to 25 percent). Among Latino men, Biden’s lead is only eight points (47 percent to 39 percent). These patterns are similar across both Latino college graduates and those without a degree.
Stephanie Valencia, the president of Equis Research, which focuses on Latino voters, told us that its polls suggest that Latino men may have even moved slightly toward Trump this year. If so, they are the only large demographic group to do so.
In effect, gender seems to be outweighing ethnicity for some Latino men.
Race may get more attention, but gender also plays a huge and growing role in politics: The gender gap, which was virtually zero in the 1960s and ’70s, could reach a record high this year. The trend — men moving to the right and women to the left — is occurring in other high-income democracies as well, for a complicated mix of reasons, as Eric Levitz explains in New York magazine.
My colleague Jennifer Medina recently wrote an eye-opening story called “The Macho Appeal of Donald Trump,” focused on Latino men. The whole story is worth reading, but here is a key passage:
… what has alienated so many older, female and suburban voters is a key part of Mr. Trump’s appeal to these men, interviews with dozens of Mexican-American men supporting Mr. Trump shows: To them, the macho allure of Mr. Trump is undeniable. He is forceful, wealthy and, most important, unapologetic. In a world where at any moment someone might be attacked for saying the wrong thing, he says the wrong thing all the time and does not bother with self-flagellation.
The story was set in Arizona — a state that could decide the election.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
Probably close I guess. Don't know exactly how it would work, but I'm guessing states with 5 EC votes, whoever gets more votes gets 3 EC votes. So person A gets 45% and person B gets 44% of the votes, person A gets 3 and person B gets 2? And the third party single digit people get 0. SO there could still be a lot of battle over that last 1 or 2 % in close states.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
The whole thing is goofy. First off, do we know what states turn out well or turn out poorly. Admittedly, about the only thing I know is that Minnesota tends to be above average in terms of voter turnout. In a sense, we're punished for that. A state with the same population gets the same number of electoral votes even if they vote at half the rate we do. There are other things that bug me, too (e.g., Wyoming voter is worth 4X as much as a California voter). And to be honest, I've never understood the conventional wisdom that with one-person-one-vote, candidates would only focus on the big cities. Right now, they only focus on about eight states. Using the voting system that every other election in the country uses would force them to cast a pretty wide net. (And, man, you should see the MN governor candidates make the rounds throughout northern Minnesota; I know they don't just focus on the big metro area).
The electoral college is probably the weirdest feature of any election anywhere in the world. I believe, if some state wanted to, they could change their own rules and take the vote entirely away from the people and simply say "the state Senate will vote for the electors." There would be outrage, of course, but it's possible on paper, I think. The "rogue elector" factor is not only possible, but it's been done, recently (only in ways that won't impact who wins, but it shows the possibilities, particularly now that an entire party is a cult).
But this is a non-starter. It's not going away. It's not being tweaked in terms of how it's written into the constitution. States could tweak how they do it...for example the way Maine and Nebraska do it. I suppose there's analysis of what would happen if every state went the Maine/Nebraska route. My guess is that even though the EC favors the GOP now, it would even more so in that model. In theory, the aggregate votes from each district would reflect the national pulse (minus gerrymandering and voter turnout disparities). Then the two additional votes per state (i.e., the senators) would lean heavily GOP. So I hate to say it, but from my view, I hope nothing changes (given the reality that the US constitution part can't change).
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
Probably close I guess. Don't know exactly how it would work, but I'm guessing states with 5 EC votes, whoever gets more votes gets 3 EC votes. So person A gets 45% and person B gets 44% of the votes, person A gets 3 and person B gets 2? And the third party single digit people get 0. SO there could still be a lot of battle over that last 1 or 2 % in close states.
My long post assumes the Nebraska Kansas model (one vote per district, two votes for statewide winner). Under your plan, that does more directly reflect voter preference (with the biggest flaw being that it rewards low turnout). The less-than-precise nature of that "middle vote" in each state would be very interesting in a close election. I'm not sure whether that would create more challenges or fewer. Probably more because even a state that isn't close could be challenged. All 50 (plus DC) would be in play as long as the margin was less than 51.
Post edited by OnWis97 on
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
trump posted the 60 minutes interview on twitter. i just listened to about 20 minutes of it. how the hell does he think this is going to help him? he comes off like a total fucking asshole. bragging about how he gutted obamacare. at the 18 minute mark he needs 2 hands to drink a small glass of water again.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
I mean for the actual presidential election.
What he means is the EC favors small states. If you look at population, there's more EC per person for small states than larger ones.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
I mean for the actual presidential election.
What he means is the EC favors small states. If you look at population, there's more EC per person for small states than larger ones.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
Probably close I guess. Don't know exactly how it would work, but I'm guessing states with 5 EC votes, whoever gets more votes gets 3 EC votes. So person A gets 45% and person B gets 44% of the votes, person A gets 3 and person B gets 2? And the third party single digit people get 0. SO there could still be a lot of battle over that last 1 or 2 % in close states.
My long post assumes the Nebraska Kansas model (one vote per district, two votes for statewide winner). Under your plan, that does more directly reflect voter preference (with the biggest flaw being that it rewards low turnout). The less-than-precise nature of that "middle vote" in each state would be very interesting in a close election. I'm not sure whether that would create more challenges or fewer. Probably more because even a state that isn't close could be challenged. All 50 (plus DC) would be in play as long as the margin was less than 51.
I wasn't familiar with how Nebraska did it, other than it wasn't all or none. That makes sense for larger states. But a small state will still essentially be all or nothing. A state with 3 EC votes, the winner gets the 1, plus the 2 for the state. You would most likely end upwith all 3 EC votes with only 46% of the voters. Probably still true for states with 4 and 5 EC votes. A state with 20 EC votes that would probably work pretty well.
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
I mean for the actual presidential election.
I was thinking of the Nebraska/Maine model, where the districts vote but the statewide winner gets the two "senate" votes that contribute the states' number of electoral votes. That's roughly how I envision a "proportionate EC" going. So, in Minnesota, where, the Dems win, Biden gets those two along with probably 4 of the eight districts. 6 to 4 Biden (rather than 10 to 0). Now do this for California...
In a smaller moderate state, say Wisconsin, that's huge for the GOP. Let's say the districts go 7 to 4 Trump...but Trump wins the state by a narrow margin...it's then 9 to 4 Trump. Those extra two go to the GOP in about 35 states and the Dems in about 15. Advantage, GOP.
Now, the way you guys are thinking about it, Trump probably wins Wisconsin 7 to 6...as you're just taking the number of votes and proportioning them under the 13 electoral votes (PS, I don't know how man Wisconsin has...). If every state did it that way, then it becomes much less tilted toward rural voters. I It would still tilt slightly to small states (example, Wyoming still overpopulated).
But I think that would be a state-by-state decision. Texas ain't doing that. In fact, probably no traditionally red or traditionally blue state would. Most likely it would be the Nebraska/Maine model. And I think that would actually tilt the EC even more.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I always thought the all or nothing EC model was dumb. It focuses on a few mostly Midwest states, when even sold red or blue states like CA or TX are still usually around 60/40, it makes no sense to ignore that 40% and go all or none. I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
If you do ratio electors, isn't that basically the same as a direct election?
Probably close I guess. Don't know exactly how it would work, but I'm guessing states with 5 EC votes, whoever gets more votes gets 3 EC votes. So person A gets 45% and person B gets 44% of the votes, person A gets 3 and person B gets 2? And the third party single digit people get 0. SO there could still be a lot of battle over that last 1 or 2 % in close states.
My long post assumes the Nebraska Kansas model (one vote per district, two votes for statewide winner). Under your plan, that does more directly reflect voter preference (with the biggest flaw being that it rewards low turnout). The less-than-precise nature of that "middle vote" in each state would be very interesting in a close election. I'm not sure whether that would create more challenges or fewer. Probably more because even a state that isn't close could be challenged. All 50 (plus DC) would be in play as long as the margin was less than 51.
I wasn't familiar with how Nebraska did it, other than it wasn't all or none. That makes sense for larger states. But a small state will still essentially be all or nothing. A state with 3 EC votes, the winner gets the 1, plus the 2 for the state. You would most likely end upwith all 3 EC votes with only 46% of the voters. Probably still true for states with 4 and 5 EC votes. A state with 20 EC votes that would probably work pretty well.
Right. Any state with three votes would by default be all-or-none. Bigger states would be a bit more in play but overall those two-per-state play a similar role to what they play today, favoring smaller states.
Under your plan, Wyoming would be voting for one electoral vote. What I mean is, it's unlikely that a candidate would dominate to the point of getting all three. Basically, each would get 1 just for showing up and whichever got the majority would nab the second.
My plan: Neb/Maine--gives winning candidate in each district a vote (plus two statewide winners)
Your plan: proportions entire state, regardless of district. I like this much, much better...that said
Your plan would create fascinating scenarios. Third-party candidates could actually win electoral votes. Get 5% of the vote in California, that probably gets you 3 electoral votes. Get 10% of the vote in Wyoming, that probably gets you zero. But a couple of strong third-party candidates could make real dent. And this would eventually show the ugliness of the EC, as no candidate gets the majority and then (I think) each state's House delegation casts one vote. Wild.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Voted in person last Friday. Took a whole of 10 minutes from the time I left my house to pressing the “cast ballot” button. Easy Peesy!
if biden wins, i sincerely hope he enacts some type of election reform. not just the electoral college (if he can), but also presidential elections at the state level. these asshole republicans being allowed to basically suppress the vote and gerrymander their areas so they never lose is absurd.
Yes to both! The RepresentUs movement is doing good work to (among other things) end gerrymandering.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,947
I'd say the only thing that isn't good about it is that there are still 43% of voters who think tRump does deserve to be re-elected. How many million is that? Million upon millions of people still support this man? Scary!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Agreed. It's absolutely disheartening that it's not at least 80% that say he does not deserve a second term.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
So what is the reason for having to register to vote? As in the argument for it?
Why wouldn't every eligible voter be registered as a voter by being an eligible citizen?
Because 1) it's all left up to the states 2) it can be left up to a completely absurd political process. Otherwise, voting would/should be treated like the duty and right that it is. You hear from some people, some politicians, they will tell you voting is a privilege. Which is fucking absurd.
Yes, you may be one of those countries where it's a duty? Definitely should be the case everywhere.
No. Not a duty, if I read the word correctly. You are not forced to. You can stay home. Or make a point by not voting. Only 87% voted last election.
But every citizen can show up with their ID (drivers license, passport etc) to their local voting locale, and leave a ballot on or some day that suits them before election day.
Being a citizen = you are eligable to vote and have a local voting locale designated to you Show ID = your name will be checked off on a list of the names designated to that voting locale, and your ballot will be put in the box
And election day is always on a Sunday - where the most people are free from work.
I guess a right, duty I see as almost the same. Sure, you shouldn't go to jail or something if you don't vote.
My belief is if you can automatically be drafted at 18 to go to war, then you should be automatically be registered to vote. Voting should not be an inconvenience, nor a challenge, to the voter. We should all be automatically be sent a ballot and the voting window should be at least a week, if not a month. As ideal as I would like to think everyone will be off to vote on a Sunday it's not realistic - people get screwed by having one day to vote.
In Sweden you have 18 days to vote, but the actual election day (last day of voting) is on a Sunday.
Ofc you should be eligible/register to vote automatically just by being a citizen.
Don't see why it should be any other way if one wants to be called a democracy.
But don't wanna come off as I'm dunking on the US and get PM:s about it. So will end the discussion. Maybe there are super-duper great reasons for having to jump through hoops to vote.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. This give our elected representatives greater power to make voting more difficult.
Seems you guys mix and match between the two in discussions.
Not to open the pandoras box again on here about Obama having the wrong facts:
Representative democracy, to be exact
It’s great that SC is back, but he cut out the essential portion of my comment.
I was referring to the Supreme Court and the final say on our laws, such as voting laws.
As you know, The people do not have direct access to vote for this branch of govt. Only the senate and electoral college have a voice, institutions that give more power to acreage than people.
So that's an interesting point. Now I admit I have not read all of the Federalist (or the anti-Federalist) papers, but the concept of the SCOTUS having final say in laws was not necessarily enshrined in the Constitution, it's more Marbury v Madison that set the precedent and the two other branches acquiesced to that concept.
That case may be put to the test with this election. SCOTUS’ near intervention in the PA mail ballot case this week is very concerning, since it fully involves a state setting it’s own election laws as decided in its own courts. If Barrett were sworn in, they may have overruled the state court.
Pelosi probably has more constitutional power than SCOTUS when it comes to the electoral college and contested elections, but many, after the Gore fiasco, as programmed to believe SCOTUS has absolute say.
Voted in person last Friday. Took a whole of 10 minutes from the time I left my house to pressing the “cast ballot” button. Easy Peesy!
if biden wins, i sincerely hope he enacts some type of election reform. not just the electoral college (if he can), but also presidential elections at the state level. these asshole republicans being allowed to basically suppress the vote and gerrymander their areas so they never lose is absurd.
The gerrymandering is a little absurd, I agree, but I don’t see the electoral college going away and I don’t think it should. It may need some reform, but we are not a direct democracy and our union of states would not function too well in that environment in my opinion.
one reform is proportional electoral votes....
would mean a more national focus on more states than just a handful....
The electoral college is a remnant of America’s original sin.
The framers needed to give slave owner states more power so they could ratify the constitution, but of course at the same time giving no power to the actual slaves.
Agreed. It's absolutely disheartening that it's not at least 80% that say he does not deserve a second term.
I think y'all misunderstood me. These aren't good numbers for Trump. They are right at his approval numbers.
No I got it...but I my head still spins that this whiny, kleptocratic, nepotistic, lunatic has any support. Like, we should have been able to talk to strangers on the street about this nightmare. I was kinda making a joke (and, of course, taking the gray cloud instead of the silver lining, which is that from an election perspective, it's not good for Trump).
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I would also be curious if it changed the turnout in those states too. Many republicans don't bother to vote in CA because it doesn't matter, and probably many democrats too because they know its an easy win.
1-2 hours of tomorrows work day saved using it as a podcast!
View in browser|nytimes.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
No because each state still gets the two senator votes. Those lean to small states, by design.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A state with 20 EC votes that would probably work pretty well.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
My plan: Neb/Maine--gives winning candidate in each district a vote (plus two statewide winners)
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
https://news.gallup.com/poll/322340/voters-say-trump-not-deserve-reelection.aspx
Yes to both! The RepresentUs movement is doing good work to (among other things) end gerrymandering.
I'd say the only thing that isn't good about it is that there are still 43% of voters who think tRump does deserve to be re-elected. How many million is that? Million upon millions of people still support this man? Scary!
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Agreed. It's absolutely disheartening that it's not at least 80% that say he does not deserve a second term.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The framers needed to give slave owner states more power so they could ratify the constitution, but of course at the same time giving no power to the actual slaves.
No I got it...but I my head still spins that this whiny, kleptocratic, nepotistic, lunatic has any support. Like, we should have been able to talk to strangers on the street about this nightmare. I was kinda making a joke (and, of course, taking the gray cloud instead of the silver lining, which is that from an election perspective, it's not good for Trump).
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin