Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

"It's getting better, therefore it's not bad"?

Thank you for showing the way to completely misrepresent my meaning with the fewest words.

Okay, what was your actual meaning, then? I apologize for misunderstanding, but I'm no clearer to figuring out what you were trying to say.

Talking about "the elites" making it sounds like it's an elite vs. masses conflict of class interest would lead one to the exact wrong expectation about what the actual trend is.  To whatever extent there are "elites" their interests are not particularly far from anyone else's on issues regarding war.  This stands in stark contrast to issues of taxation, intellectual property, eminent domain, labor, etc where clear conflict along "class" lines does exist.

[Bauglir]

Talking about "the elites" making it sounds like it's an elite vs. masses conflict of class interest would lead one to the exact wrong expectation about what the actual trend is.  To whatever extent there are "elites" their interests are not particularly far from anyone else's on issues regarding war.  This stands in stark contrast to issues of taxation, intellectual property, eminent domain, labor, etc where clear conflict along "class" lines does exist.

The trend of increasing safety seems totally unrelated, is the thing. People in a position to earn money or power off of military contracting and electorate fear do have an interest in wars that other people lack, for example, and are likewise in a position to suffer few cognizable negative consequences. That there are also other social trends resulting in an actual decrease of violence over time doesn't exactly change that.

And I honestly don't see where you're getting this confusion between discussing the state of things and discussing the rate of change of things. If one keeps those straight, we can talk about whatever class interest conflicts we want without saying anything about the trend you tried to bring up as an objection.

[Owlbread]

Casting a superficial, cursory glance over American politics right now I can only note that the Republicans are almost as stupid as the Scottish Labour Party and that I utterly dread the day Hilary Clinton ever gets into office. If you think Obama was a polarising/divisive figure just you wait and see. The South might as well just finally secede and have done with it.

I've always wondered... what do American ballot papers look like? Is it just one or the other i.e. "Marco Rubio" - X and "Hilary Clinton" - X? Do other parties show up or do you need to write them in?

[Karlito]

I've always wondered... what do American ballot papers look like? Is it just one or the other i.e. "Marco Rubio" - X and "Hilary Clinton" - X? Do other parties show up or do you need to write them in?

Other parties show up. Requirements to get on a ballot vary by state, but typically you have to collect such-and-such number of signatures and pay a small fee. I will usually see candidates for the Libertarian Party and the Independent American Party for state-level offices, though they never win. I also have the explicit ability to vote for "None of These", but Nevada doesn't allow write-in ballots for any office.

[Playergamer]

Casting a superficial, cursory glance over American politics right now I can only note that the Republicans are almost as stupid as the Scottish Labour Party and that I utterly dread the day Hilary Clinton ever gets into office. If you think Obama was a polarising/divisive figure just you wait and see. The South might as well just finally secede and have done with it.

I've always wondered... what do American ballot papers look like? Is it just one or the other i.e. "Marco Rubio" - X and "Hilary Clinton" - X? Do other parties show up or do you need to write them in?

As our token Republican, I must say that you're probably looking at the far...further right Republicans. Republicans aren't all crazy bigots, just like most Democrats aren't hippies.

[Sheb]

The thing is, most Republican politicians seems to be crazy bigot, while I wouldn't call Hillary a hippie.

[wierd]

as a centrist, I see them all as pandering sociopaths that pander to different blocks of the electorate, and having achieved some success (eg, reelections) with those strategies, considers them to be the holy sacrement of thier respective parties.


Repubs going agains big business? heresy!
Dems going against immigrants and minorities? heresy!


It's this issue with "heresy" that causes problems. Yes, i would say their behavior is borderline religious in nature, as it seems completely faith based.  Even as big business literally destroys the american economy, the repubs oooh and aaaah over it like it was the coming of the messiah.  Likewise, even as probes into H1Bs for tech firms are showing systemic abuses by contractors working for the big names in CA, the dems hold fast that H1B visas need to be expanded, not placed under a moratorium or further investigated.  (on this issue, it seems only the more centrist types are willing to press for the investigations, that's from both parties, stemming from the dogmatic behaviors of the panderings of both sides.)

as for what a US ballot looks like, we get 2 ballots.  The first is the primary election ballot, where candidates are all present.  They get weeded out to the basic 2 or 3 candidates that are presented at the actual election ballot.

When combined with gerrymandering, the primary election statistics can bere-interpreted in ways that make statiticians cry, and allow pollitically powerful candidates (or at least "favored") to steal the nomnations, and thus get on the real ballot, when when total vote count does not align with that outcome.

I would actually welcome a more european style ballot being trialed on the US, but such a thing is probably not legal to trial here, as the electoral college system is defined in our constitution.

[Sheb]

Have you never heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

[FearfulJesuit]

Have you never heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

Would be interesting if the NPVIC hit 270 votes right before the election. I don't think it would, but it's a possibility- they're already more than halfway to 270, although the easy targets have mostly been picked off.

[Sheb]

One thing I wonder, is that the state who passed the Compact seems to be mostly democratic. Is there a reason for that?

[Bauglir]

It involves subverting what has come to be seen as the traditional Will of the Founders; that is, the Electoral College. Harder to sell that to the conservative crowd, almost by definition. At least, that's my guess - I can't back it up with studies.

[FearfulJesuit]

One thing I wonder, is that the state who passed the Compact seems to be mostly democratic. Is there a reason for that?

I think it's probably lingering resentment from 2000, when Gore would have won under the popular vote. I think this is likely to change, though, especially because more and more formerly-red states are turning swing or blue, making the presidential votes of Republicans in those states meaningless.

Neutering the Electoral College is probably a good thing for voter turnout and American democracy, but I can't say I'm not going to miss it- it sure makes the mechanics of campaigning much more interesting.

[misko27]

Nate Silver took a dim view of the whole thing. Republican officials have adopted a sort of knee-jerk reaction towards such types of voter reform, and moderate states, ordinarily battlegrounds, benefit from the Compact not passing. And if red states oppose it, and purple states oppose it, its not going to get to 270 any time soon.

[otto]

(spam removed)

[Sheb]

This is an... interesting spambot. I wonder who's paying for it.

Do you think we can invoke it in other thread? Or invoke other issue-specific spambot?