Print

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

[hector13]

I'm not sure a Trump impeachment is ideal.

[Neonivek]

I'm not sure a Trump impeachment is ideal.

It wouldn't Impeach him. It would force him to reconsider his candidates.

[Reelya]

Actually, I'm starting to think that the screwed-up system in Maine is deliberate:

This has been a problem for a while in Maine, where strong third-party showings have routinely produced winners who are unable to get a majority. Nine of the past 11 governors have been elected with less than 50 percent of the vote. Five won with less than 40 percent. Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican and ardent Trump supporter, won the 2014 election with 38 percent of the vote after independent and Democratic rivals split the remainder.

Ranked-choice voting, sometimes called instant runoff voting, has a smoothing function. Under the system just approved in Maine, voters rank five candidates from 1 to 5 on their ballots.

Instead of casting a ballot for a single candidate, the voter ranks all of the candidates by preference. So if there are four choices, the voter is asked to rank them one through four.

...

This year’s measure was put into motion in 2014, but the campaign coincided with rising voter anger over Maine’s governor, Paul R. LePage, a Republican, who has repeatedly embarrassed the state with contentious comments. Mr. LePage was twice elected in three-way races with less than a majority of the vote, which may have given voters an added incentive to approve this measure.

So the governor of Maine has benefited greatly from the old system, but was forced to implemented Ranked Ballots due to a public ballot initiative. The initiative won by 52% to 48%, so if they can implement the most ass-backwards system possible (WHY do you have to draw arrows rather than just tick a box in each column? There's no explanation for that! The arrows don't do anything), they might be able to turn people against "the system" and have a counter-initiative to reverse it.

Although I think that could backfire. Someone could run against him with the election promise of simplifying the ballots.

[Phmcw]

Well all that discussion is fine and dandy, but in the end the issue is that there is one president with a lot of power and a very short mandate. For a confederation it doesn't makes sense.

Why not have those power held by a government whose members are elect in a more proportional fashion. This way you would have roughly 50% representatives for each party and the smaller parties would still have weight. Sure, the president would still be the one from the party who won the election, but he'd need a coalition to rule.

That's what most countries do anyway, the American system is very old fashioned (because it's very old).

[LoSboccacc]

Why not have those power held by a government whose members are elect in a more proportional fashion. This way you would have roughly 50% representatives for each party and the smaller parties would still have weight. Sure, the president would still be the one from the party who won the election, but he'd need a coalition to rule.

ah! imagine a place where to hold all those representatives furiously debating for reaching consensus. A place of constant parlor and compromise, we might even call it Debatement. We shall have two of them with slightly different system for election, so that it's more representative of different mixes of population and they can check each other in turns. Maybe one of them can appeal the elder population, which is by definition wiser but in smaller number than the flamboyant youth, so we'd can get two of them, and to differentiate this one we'd call it the Elderes.

If the populace need a collective names, we can compromise on where they meet, something like 'The Buildings' come to mind.

[Phmcw]

Yeah, I know that, but if I'm not mistaken that's what the US use for their legislative organ.
Why the hell don't use a similar approach for the executive?


Right now, the winner of the election take all executive power, how does that makes sense? It encourage a non-compromise approach you cannot afford if you have to actually rule with your opposition in the same government. And there is also the issue of small parties. In other countries they are often important, since they can be part of a coalition.


It allow for much more nuanced campaign, since appealing and addressing concern represented by smaller parties is important.

[martinuzz]

When I was still a small kid, I though that 'impeachment' meant they would chop a president into small bits, and add peaches and maple syrup.
Thank goodness it's not. Trump would taste horrible, a combination of asinine, bitter and spoiled.

[Reelya]

Yeah, I know that, but if I'm not mistaken that's what the US use for their legislative organ.
Why the hell don't use a similar approach for the executive?


Right now, the winner of the election take all executive power, how does that makes sense? It encourage a non-compromise approach you cannot afford if you have to actually rule with your opposition in the same government. And there is also the issue of small parties. In other countries they are often important, since they can be part of a coalition.


It allow for much more nuanced campaign, since appealing and addressing concern represented by smaller parties is important.

Rules for Rulers was very good to put things in perspective. Power holders (in both dictatorships and democracies) actually try and minimize the size of their coalition - that's because the less backers you can have but still win, the less rewards you have to promise to provide. All the talk about reaching out to all Americans is just the sideshow.

So in other words all the little tactics and rules the two parties put in place that help themselves and the other party keep in place because they help them too - if you look at a lot of them, they're about reducing the number of people you need to appeal to. Gerrymandering, Swing State system, FPTP / spoiler effect, excessive voter ID laws, making it hard to register, having the polls on work days 9am-6pm instead of a saturday or something sensible, etc etc. Pretty much every annoying or negative aspect of the voting system is in some way is connected with reducing the number of people that matter in the election. That's the real thing we're all up against, and not just in America. It also plays into how partisan things are. Because both sides are working on maintaining the smallest effective coalitions you can and still get votes, they are increasingly drawing from completely isolated social circles. Sure, some politicians buck the trend and promise reforms, which kick in from time to time, but overall, the "minimizing voters that matter" crowd shape things precisely because those tactics are the best at winning elections while making the least number of expensive promises.

[LoSboccacc]

I mostly agree except the "voter id" being a negative. All that you said needs fixing, of course, but not requiring id from voters is just asking for trouble. You might not have seen the need so far because you were all happily living the american dream, but voters manipulation is definitely a thing now.

[Reelya]

But there have been 31 proven cases of voter impersonation in over 1 billion votes cast over a 15 year period. Meanwhile, the number of definite adult citizens who lack photo identification is in the millions.

Standing in line to fake a vote is time-consuming, requiring you to stand in line for possibly hours, you definitely can't do it more than once per person per polling station, it carries a risk of fines, jail time and being branded a felon for life. All for the sake of a single extra vote. Basically the effort and risk is so disproportionate to the reward that it's a non-existent crime.

Also, to "impersonate" a voter you do need to have memorized complete registration details for a registered voter, and be sure that they're not going to vote anywhere else. To get that level of specificity for thousands of votes would need a concerted effort with a massive database. It's not something you could just do on a whim because of the "lack of voter ID requirement". And if there really were thousands of fakes standing at every polling station: the amount of people required to pull something like this off and actually effect an election, then you can be sure they'd fuck it up quite often enough for there to be constant smoking guns and details that don't match up - plus the fact that each "fake voter" would need to have a unique properly-registered identity memorized for each fake vote they want to place at each polling station, and all of them would need to be careful not to slip up and mix up their details.

In any case, if you managed to fake enough voter registrations to skew an election, you wouldn't bother with a plan where hundreds of people march from polling station to polling station with stacks of fake voter registration details that they need to get correct each time. You'd just send postal votes. So the voter ID laws really are useless, because they protect from a non-existent crime that only an idiot would try, but would actually require genius-level planning and hundreds of accomplices.

[martinuzz]

I mostly agree except the "voter id" being a negative. All that you said needs fixing, of course, but not requiring id from voters is just asking for trouble. You might not have seen the need so far because you were all happily living the american dream, but voters manipulation is definitely a thing now.

Voter ID is good. People not being able to afford ID is not good. If you want voter ID as a state, you're kinda obligated to provide ID for free, so no one is denied their voting right on financial grounds. (Over here, ID is not free, it's a whopping 80-ish euros (less for an EU-only ID card)) but if you're on 'social minimum' you will be reimbursed by the city coffers.)

[LoSboccacc]

I mostly agree except the "voter id" being a negative. All that you said needs fixing, of course, but not requiring id from voters is just asking for trouble. You might not have seen the need so far because you were all happily living the american dream, but voters manipulation is definitely a thing now.

Voter ID is good. People not being able to afford ID is not good. If you want voter ID as a state, you're kinda obligated to provide ID for free, so no one is denied their voting right on financial grounds. (Over here, ID is not free, it's a whopping 80-ish euros (less for an EU-only ID card)) but if you're on 'social minimum' you will be reimbursed by the city coffers.)

ah that'd explain the weirdness. yeah once it mandatory to have one for voting, it needs to be mandatory also to have it free. in Italy we actually have a compromise: a personally issued 'voter card' that's only valid in your circumscription. the card can be obtained for free in a short time, even on election day, but has limited uses, and it's a required document to vote.

[martinuzz]

We have that too. A few weeks before election day, we get a personal voting pass sent in the mail, which can only be used at a specific voting station (usually the one closest to your home). To vote, you have to bring that personal voting pass, plus your ID to show that you are indeed the person that the voting pass was issued to.

It is possible to change the voting location, but you have to go through official channels to request that. It's also possible to authorize someone else to vote for you. That is restricted though. A single person can only be authorized to vote for two other people.

The current US voting ID system is criminally insane, promoting class division. The well-off can afford to vote, while the poor can't afford an ID.

[Phmcw]

Well, make getting an id free or cheap enough that the price doesn't matter (like 5$)? Problem solved (like in every other frigging countries).

[Culise]

The problem is still the opportunity cost of obtaining one.  If you live in a rural area, your trip to get one from a state DMV can easily be a day's trip there and back, especially if your state DMV is underfunded and doesn't have a full location that offers non-license IDs in your vicinity.  Even if the card itself is free, you're still out the cost of gas and a day's work that could be going towards your paycheck.  The idea of mailing a voting card, as martinuzz notes occurs, is one that could be a reasonable solution to this.