Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Peregrine wrote: the problem is not a willingness to vote third party, it's that the US voting system makes it virtually impossible for a successful third party to exist.
This is the first thing that you've said in this thread that I agree with. Mostly because you didn't talk down to anyone for a complete sentence. I knew you had it in you.
At this point, I'm willing to give a system like ranked voting a chance.
Instant-runoff voting
Used in national elections in Australia, this system is said to simulate a series of runoff elections. If no candidate is the first choice of more than half of the voters, then all votes cast for the candidate with the lowest number of first choices are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on who is ranked next on each ballot.[7] If this does not result in any candidate receiving a majority, further rounds of redistribution occur.[7]
Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Let's do it!
And while we're at it, change the drinking age to 18!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 12:33:25
Instant runoff (AKA preferential voting) is definitely a lot better than First Past the Post voting. It isn't a cure to all your ails, and even in Australia we've remained largely a 2 party system for 100 years with it, but it allows the for possibility of independents and 3rd parties to exist in a serious manner without simply acting as spoilers.
It also gives minor parties a bit of pull even if they're not getting many seats in parliament - a party getting 10% of the vote may get almost no seats, but the majors still have to take their positions seriously as they want to court that chunk of the electorate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 12:39:42
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Elections are up to the states, and there is nothing in the constitution preventing a state from adopting IRV as far as I know.
At this point, I'm willing to give a system like ranked voting a chance.
Instant-runoff voting
Why not just direct voting?
We used to have an electoral system until the 80s but now the voting for President is direct. You can become a candidate by being nominated by your party (the usual way in many places) or having 20,000 f people register as supporters for your candidacy, not insignificant in a country of 5,5 million. Then every eligible voter can vote for whichever candidate strikes his fancy. Once votes are tallied you have two possible outcomes. A candidate that gets over 50% is victorious, but if none did then the top two go another round.
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Elections are up to the states, and there is nothing in the constitution preventing a state from adopting IRV as far as I know.
I see your point, but the states vote for electors, so you would still end up with just one choice/winner from each state. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) what has been proposed was for this to occur at the national level. If it does not, you don't really solve anything even if all 50 states agreed to change their method (which is VERY unlikely).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told an audience of more than 1,000 Long Island business and political leaders Tuesday that he will vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, citing her experience, temperament and — in a jab at GOP nominee Donald Trump — her “stamina.”
Powell, speaking at the Long Island Association fall luncheon in Woodbury, was harshly critical of Trump, arguing that the New York businessman was “not qualified” to serve as commander and chief and had sold Americans a “bill of goods” that he cannot deliver.
“He insults us every day,” said Powell, who served as secretary of state under Republican President George W. Bush.
“He has insulted America in one way almost every day,” Powell said. “He has insulted Latino Americans. He has insulted African-Americans. He has insulted women. He has insulted his own party. He has insulted our allies around the world one by one by one. He has insulted veterans.”
The people Trump has insulted most, Powell said, are his own supporters, “because they are being sold a bill of goods.”
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Elections are up to the states, and there is nothing in the constitution preventing a state from adopting IRV as far as I know.
I see your point, but the states vote for electors, so you would still end up with just one choice/winner from each state. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) what has been proposed was for this to occur at the national level. If it does not, you don't really solve anything even if all 50 states agreed to change their method (which is VERY unlikely).
US Constitution is very clear that the state legislatures controls how the electors are chosen.
It's also clear that the electors could unfaithfully nominate anyone w/o facing sanctions at the Federal level. (it's dubious that the states can, but there are laws against unfaithful electors in some states).
The states could even codify in their respective state's law that the electors could even choose the nominated party's VP as president.
That's all legal and kosher.
Meaning, there's nothing stopping the states from picking anyone else over what the RNC or DNC wishes.
jasper76 wrote: The latter mostly. I am an ordinary person living under the whims of my government, and I don't want those whims to go unopposed, even if I back the President generally speaking.
Eeh so did I read this right? Without even knowing what said president is doing you want president be opposed?
Opposition just for sake of opposition is extremely stupid. Oppose what needs to be opposed, support what needs to be supported. Don't oppose just to oppose.
I think he wants the president/Hillary to have her legislative efforts fairly scrutinized and challenged. There is a nasty habit in DC of blind party line support. If the president has a (D) at the end of her/his name then everyone in Congress with a (D) after their name has to vote YEA for whatever the president supports. Same thing happens if the president has an (R) after his/her name, everyone in Congress with an (R) after their name has to toe the line and vote YEA for whatever the president wants because the president is the highest ranking elected party member so the party needs to act in solidarity to support the president.
We can see this happening right now with the Republican infighting over the supporting of Trump. Trump has an (R) next to his name so everyone else with an (R) next to their name is supposed to support his candidacy and policies in the name of party solidarity. There is a lot of pressure applied by the RNC to (R) politicians to do so because they need party unity to maximize the party's power and influence.
Look at Obama's effort to pass the ACA where one of the biggest hurdles in the House was Stupak a Democrat that wanted to change the coverage of abortion under the ACA. Because everyone in Congress with a (D) after their name was needed to vote YEA for the ACA they needed to appease Stupak and the dozens of Democrats he rallied to his cause. The Republicans were going to be NAY votes no matter what so it was up to Democrats to challenge the legislation and make changes.
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
Elections are up to the states, and there is nothing in the constitution preventing a state from adopting IRV as far as I know.
I see your point, but the states vote for electors, so you would still end up with just one choice/winner from each state. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) what has been proposed was for this to occur at the national level. If it does not, you don't really solve anything even if all 50 states agreed to change their method (which is VERY unlikely).
US Constitution is very clear that the state legislatures controls how the electors are chosen.
It's also clear that the electors could unfaithfully nominate anyone w/o facing sanctions at the Federal level. (it's dubious that the states can, but there are laws against unfaithful electors in some states).
The states could even codify in their respective state's law that the electors could even choose the nominated party's VP as president.
That's all legal and kosher.
Meaning, there's nothing stopping the states from picking anyone else over what the RNC or DNC wishes.
There's also no law that says the Republican and Democrats have to let people vote in primaries at all. The Republicans and Democrats used to simply have the party leaders choose the party's nominee. There's nothing stopping them from switching back to that system. The parties can select their nominees however they want. The state just controls the election process and candidates don't have to belong to political parties at all and voters can vote for whomever they choose.
Compel wrote: So there's no "whip" equivalent like the UK? Or potential for allowing free votes?
There are majority and minority whips in Congress but they primarily just work to broker deals to get all the party members voting as a bloc. Sometimes politicians want to vote against party lines and I remember politicians switching parties after disputes over legislative agendas. Lieberman and Jeffords went Independent, and Specter switched between the two major parties. Those are the Senators that come to mind.
Compel wrote: So there's no "whip" equivalent like the UK? Or potential for allowing free votes?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean....
Care to elaborate?
I'm not political savvy but, as I understand it. Basically you have, "free vote" which isn't too often but is generally for really contentious stuff, where say, roughly half of each party is for and against it.
Then there's 1, 2 or 3 line whips, which are generally varying degrees of, "hey guys, The Party really cares about this."
At which point, if a MP is seen as disagreeing with a 3 line whip, they better have a really good reason. - EG, "you're voting to nuke my entire constituency and they won't like that much..." OR, they're probably going to be removed from the party through various mechanisms.
Compel wrote: So there's no "whip" equivalent like the UK? Or potential for allowing free votes?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean....
Care to elaborate?
I'm not political savvy but, as I understand it. Basically you have, "free vote" which isn't too often but is generally for really contentious stuff, where say, roughly half of each party is for and against it.
Then there's 1, 2 or 3 line whips, which are generally varying degrees of, "hey guys, The Party really cares about this."
At which point, if a MP is seen as disagreeing with a 3 line whip, they better have a really good reason. - EG, "you're voting to nuke my entire constituency and they won't like that much..." OR, they're probably going to be removed from the party through various mechanisms.
(Prestor explained as such above).
Yes, there are party whips in Congress. They're mainly the "enforcer" to ensure votes are taken and "along party lines".
However, whips don't really have that much power to 'convince' a malcontent congressional-critter.
CptJake wrote: Changing the voting system for federal elections will require an amendment to the constitution. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, if for no other reason than it would require the active support of the politicians who benefit from the current system.
I wonder how many would break away from their party if given the chance. I could see there being a few who suppress thier politics to line up with a party just to have the job that they do.
I've got say the Mr. Istvan has the right of things when he says that voting has to catch up with technology. I don't see personally why voters can not give direct responses to representatives before they vote for major legislation. Most people have phones or computers, a federal voting app would be pretty interesting to see implemented.
I wonder how many would break away from their party if given the chance. I could see there being a few who suppress thier politics to line up with a party just to have the job that they do.
I've got say the Mr. Istvan has the right of things when he says that voting has to catch up with technology. I don't see personally why voters can not give direct responses to representatives before they vote for major legislation. Most people have phones or computers, a federal voting app would be pretty interesting to see implemented.
Then again if wishes were fishes...
Recent hacking incidents have probably done a lot t sabotage any hope for implementation of more direct voting options. It's not like DC was enthusiastic about the idea before.
Washington State has a "top two" system set up for primary elections. Essentially, in the primary, you get a laundry list of candidates for any given office. The two with the most votes get their names on the ballot in the general election. In theory this gives a "path to victory" for 3rd party people but in practice it will almost always be a Dem and a Republican on the general ballot.
I wonder how many would break away from their party if given the chance. I could see there being a few who suppress thier politics to line up with a party just to have the job that they do.
I've got say the Mr. Istvan has the right of things when he says that voting has to catch up with technology. I don't see personally why voters can not give direct responses to representatives before they vote for major legislation. Most people have phones or computers, a federal voting app would be pretty interesting to see implemented.
Then again if wishes were fishes...
Recent hacking incidents have probably done a lot t sabotage any hope for implementation of more direct voting options. It's not like DC was enthusiastic about the idea before.
Realistically it would require special devices given to every legal citiizen with a accurate census and civic responsibility. In other words not this generation...
well it seems we're getting closer to a national holiday for election day, seems a lot of schools will get the day off thanks to trumps violent rhetoric.
FALMOUTH, Maine — Rigged elections. Vigilante observers. Angry voters. The claims, threats and passions surrounding the presidential race have led communities around the U.S. to move polling places out of schools or cancel classes on Election Day.
The fear is that the ugly rhetoric of the campaign could escalate into confrontations and even violence in school hallways, endangering students.
“If anybody can sit there and say they don’t think this is a contentious election, then they aren’t paying much attention,” said Ed Tolan, police chief in this seaside community, which decided to call off classes on Election Day and put additional officers on duty Nov. 8.
School officials already are on edge because of the shootings and threats that have become all too common. They point to the recent firebombing of a Republican Party office in one North Carolina county and the shooting-up of another with a BB gun as the type of trouble they fear on Election Day.
Some of those anxieties have been stoked by Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the election is rigged and his appeal to his supporters to stand guard against fraud at the polls. Some are worried about clashes between the self-appointed observers and voters.
Parent Alpay Balkir said he is glad children will be home. His 8-year-old son is a student in Falmouth, where the high school doubles as a polling place.
“If it’s going to be as chaotic as they say it’s going to be, it’s a good thing. Kids should stay out of it,” Balkir said. “I don’t know what the environment is going to be like.”
Schools are popular polling places because they have plenty of parking and are usually centrally located. It’s difficult to say how many school-based polling places have been moved this year, given how decentralized the voting process is across the country.
But state and local officials say voting has been removed or classes have been canceled on Election Day at schools in Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and elsewhere.
“There is a concern, just like at a concert, sporting event or other public gathering, that we didn’t have 15 or 20 years ago. What if someone walks in a polling location with a backpack bomb or something?” said Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, co-chairman of the National Association of Secretaries of State election committee. “If that happens at a school, then that’s certainly concerning.”
Despite the concerns, the National Association of Secretaries of State does not advocate having armed guards or police stationed at the polls because their presence could intimidate voters.
Some of the pressure to close schools on Election Day or move voting is coming from parents. Sara Andriotis, a mother in the Easton, Pennsylvania, area, pushed for voting to be taken out of local schools.
“We were mostly concerned because of the risk that it puts our children in,” she said.
Easton Superintendent John Reinhart wanted to get voting out of schools altogether but was rebuffed by county election officials. So the school board canceled classes on Election Day.
“If you take the personalities away and cast the emotion with the election aside, one has to ask the question: ‘Are our schools the best places for that activity to take place?'” he said. “I just think we’ve reached the point where we need to look at other locations.”
That’s happening in Hall County, Nebraska, which got out ahead of the trend in May when it moved six polling places out of schools for a primary. Those changes will remain in place next month. Voting will be held at three churches and one community center.
Election officials elsewhere say that schools are vital places for voting and that removing them as polling places creates logistical headaches and voter confusion.
“We wouldn’t be able to conduct voting without them,” said Pam Anderson, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association. She said voting in schools has not generally been a concern in Colorado but acknowledged there is likely to be more security this year.
Wait, they seriously have schools as the polling stations whilst the pupils are still in the school?
How do they keep track of all the random adults coming into the school to vote to ensure that they go in vote and leave, rather than wander off elsewhere into the school?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jasper76 wrote: OK, has everyone accepted HRC will be the next president? OK good, let move on.
Because when someone wins the Presidency unopposed, it's a very dangerous thing, and I believe our energy is better spent on keeping Clinton'in check than in going back and forth over an inevitable loser like Trump.
Like, for realises, we expelled the immense danger...it's time to focus on the present danger.
Sure, I will vote for Hillary to keep Gropy McRapestein out of office, but what happens after that? We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Agreed, and we can start by scrutinizing HRC's plans for a no fly zone in Syria!
Utter madness from start to finish. Fraught with danger, and impracticable on every level.
...
The west managed to enforce a no-fly zone over Saddam's Iraq for most of the 1990s perfectly successfully.
The key issue with a no-fly zone in Syria now is that it would require the cooperation of the Russians, which is unlikely to be forthcoming in current conditions. However if the Russians would cooperate in return for an easing of economic sanctions against them, the situation would be very different.
Syria's air force is much weaker than the western powers', and we would have secure bases in Turkey and Jordan, as well as the possibility of one or two (or three, if the Russians would care to come on board) carrier groups in the eastern Med. We would be likely to get the cooperation of Arab nations such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia too, which would very much better than bring the Israelis into the picture.
It would be desirable to obtain a UN resolution to authorise the no-fly zone, though the experience of the Iraq no-fly zone shows it is not essential.
To return to the topic of voting, countries such as Japan, Germany and Italy with PR voting usually have multiple significant parties. It doesn't guarantee that power will be more evenly shared out, though. In Japan the country always ends up being governed by one of the two big parties.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Wait, they seriously have schools as the polling stations whilst the pupils are still in the school?
How do they keep track of all the random adults coming into the school to vote to ensure that they go in vote and leave, rather than wander off elsewhere into the school?
It's usually at the Gym or the front atrium.
Those can be cordoned off from the normal school functions.
I wonder how many would break away from their party if given the chance. I could see there being a few who suppress thier politics to line up with a party just to have the job that they do.
I've got say the Mr. Istvan has the right of things when he says that voting has to catch up with technology. I don't see personally why voters can not give direct responses to representatives before they vote for major legislation. Most people have phones or computers, a federal voting app would be pretty interesting to see implemented.
Then again if wishes were fishes...
Recent hacking incidents have probably done a lot t sabotage any hope for implementation of more direct voting options. It's not like DC was enthusiastic about the idea before.
Realistically it would require special devices given to every legal citiizen with a accurate census and civic responsibility. In other words not this generation...
.....Thanks ORussia!!
Nah, it can still be an app on a phone, but just linked to the monitoring chip the government has secretly implanted in all of us. fnord
Seriously, though, the parties really don't want increased feedback from the voters. Because if literally every citizen did vote, and were able to do so in a way that matches their political beliefs (say, voting through a survey like isidewith.com), the parties would lose their power.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Seriously, though, the parties really don't want increased feedback from the voters. Because if literally every citizen did vote, and were able to do so in a way that matches their political beliefs (say, voting through a survey like isidewith.com), the parties would lose their power.
There's also the unpleasant reality that people can be very stupid and reactionary (the fickleness of the masses). Increased participation among the electorate in the operation of state functions doesn't really result in better governance, just a more responsive one. We could probably use a somewhat more responsive government on a lot of issues, but the state can't function under the constant flux of public opinion, especially not one as big and varied as the US is.
The 'responsive gov't' should be at state and local level. Federal gov't was never set up to be responsive to people in that way, and trying to make it be so is probably not a good idea unless you want them to also have a lot more control over your life.
That may be attractive to some folks, but not all.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Wait, they seriously have schools as the polling stations whilst the pupils are still in the school?
How do they keep track of all the random adults coming into the school to vote to ensure that they go in vote and leave, rather than wander off elsewhere into the school?
At least in our school, they did it in the gym, which had outside doors, and doors which could be closed between the gym and the rest of the school.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
In the United States, many people are afraid of violence at voting centers on election day.
Now let's just stop and think about that statement for a moment. How ridiculous would that have sounded just four years ago? Thanks for already making the country greater again Trump!
Seriously, though, the parties really don't want increased feedback from the voters. Because if literally every citizen did vote, and were able to do so in a way that matches their political beliefs (say, voting through a survey like isidewith.com), the parties would lose their power.
There's also the unpleasant reality that people can be very stupid and reactionary (the fickleness of the masses). Increased participation among the electorate in the operation of state functions doesn't really result in better governance, just a more responsive one. We could probably use a somewhat more responsive government on a lot of issues, but the state can't function under the constant flux of public opinion, especially not one as big and varied as the US is.
We use a representative republic to protect us from the tyranny of the majority and the whim of the mob. People vote for a candidate to represent them and then the winning candidate serves his/her term of office (barring death, grievous injury, a criminal conviction or a recall vote). The electorate isn't voting for legislation they are simply electing people who represent their interest to help write and pass legislation. If people elect representatives who become unpopular then those representatives are unlikely to be reelected. More people voting is a good thing as it creates a more engaged electorate and gets more voices heard at the ballot box and in the legislature. What is bad is coming up with justifications to keep "those people" from voting (whomever "they" might be: uninformed voters, members of a certain demographic group, members of a particular political group or ideology, etc.) Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, everyone is entitled to due process, everyone gets to vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: In the United States, many people are afraid of violence at voting centers on election day.
Now let's just stop and think about that statement for a moment. How ridiculous would that have sounded just four years ago? Thanks for already making the country greater again Trump!
Seems mostly to be overly cautious and hyperbolic exaggerations. There's a big difference between actual credible threats and just a general fear that somebody might do something bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 23:28:12
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
