Jump to content

Voting is too important to be left to the people


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think the Constitution says that voters have any right to actually vote, or to have their votes counted, or to have their votes apportioned among districts in a non-partisan way. They've handed down a number of decisions recently on gerrymandering and poll access that say "you're screwed, too bad so sad" to voters.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

I think they are good to go as long as they equally disenfranchise all voters. I can't quite believe how openly hostile many politicians have become to elections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innocent Bystander said:

The Arizona Republicans are launching into deep space lately. Whoever supports that bill should never be allowed to hold public office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The Arizona Republicans are launching into deep space lately. Whoever supports that bill should never be allowed to hold public office. 

Even for Republican the hypocricy is rich.

The voters who elected ME are great.

The ones who voted for THEM are illegitimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And consider the Georgia republican party ..  

Dozens of GOPPER election officials counted the votes fairly by all accounts . . 

And what did they get for it ?? Pressuring phone calls openly soliciting fraud, threats to their lives and families, demands that they resign . . 

So how likely is it that future Georgia GOP election officials will do honest vote counts ?? 

Slim to none odds ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't even begin to understand is why the GOP thinks they can force their guy into the presidency despite the voters saying otherwise and think they'll keep their jobs. Once you cram a dictator in there by force and mob violence or the threat of it, why the fuck would they think there would be ANY elections after that? What for? Do they think everything else would just go along the same as ever?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Once you cram a dictator in there by force and mob violence or the threat of it, why the fuck would they think there would be ANY elections after that?

Ummmm... that's kinda the point isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Ummmm... that's kinda the point isn't it?

For the dictator, sure. Does Congressman Dick Deplorable think HE is going to just carry on. Why would The President For Life give a shit what he thinks about anything, the same mob can just go kill him too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

For the dictator, sure. Does Congressman Dick Deplorable think HE is going to just carry on. Why would The President For Life give a shit what he thinks about anything, the same mob can just go kill him too.

dick will fall in line if the price is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

What I don't even begin to understand is why the GOP thinks they can force their guy into the presidency despite the voters saying otherwise and think they'll keep their jobs. Once you cram a dictator in there by force and mob violence or the threat of it, why the fuck would they think there would be ANY elections after that? What for? Do they think everything else would just go along the same as ever?

Because as soon as the election is over, the Dem factions go to war with each other and forget the mid terms will punished them if they don’t deliver something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Because as soon as the election is over, the Dem factions go to war with each other and forget the mid terms will punished them if they don’t deliver something. 

Not what I meant, although that is an issue too.

What I meant was the crowd kills Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, Trump declares himself president for life, and then the Republicans think that things just go back to normal except with them perpetually in charge? THAT would not be the end result to put it mildly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit long for the attention span of the average punter that occupies this cavern of stupidity but I’ll post it anyway.

 

 

First, it's wrong. No surprise. Socrates did not hate democracy, he saw it as a means to the end of having worthy people in charge.

Second, do you know what happened to Socrates?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

First, it's wrong. No surprise. Socrates did not hate democracy, he saw it as a means to the end of having worthy people in charge.

Second, do you know what happened to Socrates?

- DSK

Lol

 

When you ask that question all you accomplish is to confirm that 4 odd minutes is beyond your attention span.

 

 

 

Dummy!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

Lol

 

When you ask that question all you accomplish is to confirm that 4 odd minutes is beyond your attention span.

Dummy!!!!

My attention span includes reading actual books by guys like Plato and Xenophon. I don't have any need to attend YouTube U.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

My attention span includes reading actual books by guys like Plato and Xenophon. I don't have any need to attend YouTube U.

- DSK

31565 posts prove otherwise...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

My attention span includes reading actual books by guys like Plato and Xenophon. I don't have any need to attend YouTube U.

- DSK

Hey Steam

Best way I’ve found to deal with Warrior and others of his elk

You've chosen to ignore content by Sea warrior. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Hey Steam

Best way I’ve found to deal with Warrior and others of his elk

You've chosen to ignore content by Sea warrior. 

Aren’t you ‘precious’...

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Hey Steam

Best way I’ve found to deal with Warrior and others of his elk

You've chosen to ignore content by Sea warrior. 

Yep, sea warrior is a Happy Jack wannabe with even fewer redeeming qualities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Hey Steam

Best way I’ve found to deal with Warrior and others of his elk

You've chosen to ignore content by Sea warrior. 

I haven't put anybody on ignore. I can do that without computer help. But I thought it would be interesting to see if the screeching RWNJ dumbass actually knows anything about Socrates, or anything at all about the philosophical underpinnings of our form of gov't.

Didn't expect anything, was not disappointed

1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Yep, sea warrior is a Happy Jack wannabe with even fewer redeeming qualities.

Well not everyone can afford a Ridgeline and an itty-bitty cannon

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Yep, sea warrior is a Happy Jack wannabe with even fewer redeeming qualities.

And another of the intellectually challenged has offered their 1/2 penny.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I haven't put anybody on ignore. I can do that without computer help. But I thought it would be interesting to see if the screeching RWNJ dumbass actually knows anything about Socrates, or anything at all about the philosophical underpinnings of our form of gov't.

Didn't expect anything, was not disappointed

- DSK

I know this much about Socrates, he knew that allowing idiots like you to vote would get us in trouble, and here we are.

 

Enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

I know this much about Socrates, he knew that allowing idiots like you to vote would get us in trouble, and here we are.

 

Enjoy.

The dark side is strong in this one....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit long for the attention span of the average punter that occupies this cavern of stupidity but I’ll post it anyway.

Holy shit, blast from the past, where ya been?

How's the activism biz treating you these days?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Yep, sea warrior is a Happy Jack wannabe with even fewer redeeming qualities.

He votes with his ideals rather than his wallet, I'm glad to see him back.

Sea Warrior walks the walk, likely explains why you don't like him ...

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mikewof said:

...

Sea Warrior walks the walk, likely explains why you don't like him ...

...

 :lol:

Mikey, you're a bigger fascist pinhead than I thought.

Couldn't you blabber some more science-y sounding wordage to make SW proud of you?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Ridgelines suck. 

Not as much as the F35...

I mean, they are at least fit for purpose, you know, groceries, a couple bags of fertilizer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit

How about if you explain it to us Neanderthals ? 

I know the argument, and its grievous flaws . . 

do you ?? 

Lesson One for y'all - Check out Plato's star student Alcibiades 

and then get back to us  . . 

Or not !! (Actually, I would rather you did not get back to us) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 :lol:

Mikey, you're a bigger fascist pinhead than I thought.

Couldn't you blabber some more science-y sounding wordage to make SW proud of you?

- DSK

 

Calling someone is a fascist simply because you don't agree with them, is not the kind of thing that Buenaventura Durruti would have done. "Fascist" means a specific thing. If you can't be bothered to respect the power of that word, then you will likely make easy prey for an actual fascist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as the OP indicates, as well as others among the Reich . . 

once they do not get their way in an election . . 

first, they deny that they lost, but of course have zero evidence of that . . 

then they proceed to abolishing voting. 

Sure, makes sense.  

They are fascists, pure and simple - - - 

OK, to be fair, they also ring other fascist bells including . .  

irrationalism, the Führerprinzip, racism and more  . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, as the OP indicates, as well as others among the Reich . . 

once they do not get their way in an election . . 

first, they deny that they lost, but of course have zero evidence of that . . 

then they proceed to abolishing voting. 

Sure, makes sense.  

They are fascists, pure and simple - - - 

OK, to be fair, they also ring other fascist bells including . .  

irrationalism, the Führerprinzip, racism and more  . . 

Don't forget the step where they purge their party of anyone who displays a shred of morality or integrity.  They are busy taking down all the R's who voted to impeach the mango shitgibbon:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/28/politics/house-republicans-impeach-trump-backlash/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit long for the attention span of the average punter that occupies this cavern of stupidity but I’ll post it anyway.

 

 

Really?

This is your contribution?

That for democracy to work for the best requires an educated electorate?

WOW. that's deep.

I take it that you also believe that political science and civics should be mandatory in all schools then? 

I'd also like to point out that your little "school of life" clip, depicts women and youths as part of the Dikasts . 

Go  to the bottom of the class and don't post ignorant misinformed nonsense here again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think the Constitution says that voters have any right to actually vote, or to have their votes counted, or to have their votes apportioned among districts in a non-partisan way. They've handed down a number of decisions recently on gerrymandering and poll access that say "you're screwed, too bad so sad" to voters.

- DSK

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

Electoral collage?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think the Constitution says that voters have any right to actually vote, or to have their votes counted, or to have their votes apportioned among districts in a non-partisan way. They've handed down a number of decisions recently on gerrymandering and poll access that say "you're screwed, too bad so sad" to voters.

- DSK

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

Just google "SCOTUS +voting+rights" and you won't have to wait long

Or

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ohio-wins-supreme-court-fight-over-voter-registration-n873226

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/elections/georgia-voters-purge.html

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/supreme-court-allows-voter-purges-states-like-georgia/TJZqgnWEAWOBvUMdB9eDOP/?mode=new

The Supreme Court says that states can purge voter rolls with no regard to applying partisanship. To be sure, they have put at least some tiny bit of a fence around the state simply dumping all Democrats the day before the election. Give them a few years.

To vote, you need to be registered. You don't have the right to register and you don't have the right to STAY registered.

To vote, you need to have a place to cast your vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/12/report-court-ruling-caused-mass-voting-place-closures-southern-u-s/2272866001/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations-idUSKCN1VV09J

The Supremes have said, "Nah, if the state closes the only polling place you can reasonably get to, that's too bad for you." And of course, Republican-controlled legislatures have losed lots and lots of polling places near colleges and in minority neighborhoods.

If you're not angry about the Republican attitude about your right to vote, and have your vote counted, and the Supreme Court's willingness to say "Yeah, fuck your feelings" then you're not paying attention

Gerymandering? fine, no problem

using tax money to hire analysts to surgically target ways to eliminate exclude Democrats from voting? Bring it on.

Of course, the Constitution originally said that only rich white men could vote. It's "originalism" or maybe it's "textualism"

But the bottom line: as an American citizen, you do not have the actual right to vote. The state can take your vote away by several means, and that's that.

- DSK

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

Takes no time at all. The Supremes take the “states shall” prett seriously.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think the Constitution says that voters have any right to actually vote, or to have their votes counted, or to have their votes apportioned among districts in a non-partisan way. They've handed down a number of decisions recently on gerrymandering and poll access that say "you're screwed, too bad so sad" to voters.

- DSK

Oh come now, the Supremes were bought and paid for by the best of us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans are going all-out to limit voting rights. We know why

It’s been less than a month since rightwing insurrectionists stormed the Capitol building in a deadly riot incited by the former president and his false claims of mass voter fraud. In the riot’s wake, many prominent Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the attackers and those who spurred them on. “The mob was fed lies,” said the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.”

Those “other powerful people” were powerful members of the Republican party and leading voices in conservative media, who are now either claiming we simply need to move on for the sake of healing, or saying that actually, the riot was the left’s fault. But while some Republicans are positioning themselves as honest and reasonable by condemning the riot and recognizing that it was sparked by lies about voter fraud, their party’s actions and policy priorities tell a very different story. Because as our nation remains rocked by an attack on the heart of our democracy, Republicans are using the same baseless lies that fueled it to push a staggering number of laws to scale back voting rights.

A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice shows just how effectively Republicans have been talking out of both sides of their mouths, at once decrying the violence over false allegations of election rigging, and at the same time using false allegations of voter fraud to make it harder for people to vote. In 2021 legislative sessions (which six states haven’t even yet begun), lawmakers in 28 states have pushed a whopping 106 bills that would restrict voting access – and we’re not even a month into the year. According to the Brennan Center, that’s three times the number of restrictive voting laws that were introduced by 3 February last year. These laws are clearly responsive to widespread conspiracy theories on the right – conspiracy theories started by the Republican party and the former president.

Each one of these 106 bills aims to make voting harder, either by scaling back vote-by-mail, imposing stricter voter identification laws, limiting policies that successfully registered large numbers of voters, or allowing states to more easily and aggressively purge their voter rolls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

How about if you explain it to us Neanderthals ? 

 

I’d like to but fortunately, I learned a long time ago that “one simply cannot fix stupid” so I tend not to waste my time trying to climb insurmountable obstacles such as your lack of IQ.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Electoral collage?

 

No, that's the way we do it here, and we do it that way for a specific reason, it's the reason that the Tenth Amendment was the capstone on the original Bill of Rights. The National government generally stays beholden to the States. You may not agree with that, and you are welcome to do things the way you like in your own country, but that's how we do it here ... we vote for our State representatives, and they are supposed to exercise their constituent's will in the National government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Really?

This is your contribution?

That for democracy to work for the best requires an educated electorate?

WOW. that's deep.

I take it that you also believe that political science and civics should be mandatory in all schools then? 

I'd also like to point out that your little "school of life" clip, depicts women and youths as part of the Dikasts . 

Go  to the bottom of the class and don't post ignorant misinformed nonsense here again.

Lol

Yer an ejit of the highest order, congratulations.

 

ps. Biden is a sweet shop owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

Electoral collage?

Collage?  I that like a mish mash of picture of the election??

Melz, The EC is part of the original Constitution.  The current SC had nothing to do with how the EC works.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Takes no time at all. The Supremes take the “states shall” prett seriously.

 

So in other words they're doing their duty and interpreting the Constitution and not making up shit that's not there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So in other words they're doing their duty and interpreting the Constitution and not making up shit that's not there.  

I expect the current SC to shortly declare the Constitution unconstitutional. It really is getting in the way of the Religious Alt-Right taking over the country.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So in other words they're doing their duty and interpreting the Constitution and not making up shit that's not there.  

Depends on who's doing the deciding. There are strict constitutionalists, who believe that the words as written are inviolate, There are others who believe that the constitution is fluid, and should change, and grow with the times. This is why there are amendments to the constitution, and why sometimes those amendments are superseded.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit long for the attention span of the average punter that occupies this cavern of stupidity but I’ll post it anyway.

 

 

Socrates also wanted to ban Homer, stating that the battle scenes and misery of war depicted in The Iliad would dissuade people from going to war for the State. He was basically a fascist,  which explains why you like him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Cite?  Please give the class an example where the SC said voters don't have the right to vote or to have their votes counted?

Take your time, I'll wait.  

You should know this . .   just do a tad of research before you make a fool of yourself  . .  

https://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutional-right-to-vote-blog-bush-v-gore-ten-years-later

The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 9:27 AM, Steam Flyer said:

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think the Constitution says that voters have any right to actually vote, or to have their votes counted, or to have their votes apportioned among districts in a non-partisan way. They've handed down a number of decisions recently on gerrymandering and poll access that say "you're screwed, too bad so sad" to voters.

- DSK

44 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So in other words they're doing their duty and interpreting the Constitution and not making up shit that's not there.  

And in our Republic, the states have a degree of autonomy based on their State Constitutions.

Fix your State before trying to fix the Federal Govt.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do y'all mean, "fix" elections ?? 

Our local conservative friends seem to have no clue about the nature of the modern republican party. 

Prominent members of the VGOP Reich are openly calling for the end of voting and democracy 

especially Cruz and Hawley  

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/02/05/271937304/rethinking-the-17th-amendment-an-old-idea-gets-fresh-opposition

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
22 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

This video might be a bit long for the attention span of the average punter that occupies this cavern of stupidity but I’ll post it anyway.

 

 

First, it's wrong. No surprise. Socrates did not hate democracy, he saw it as a means to the end of having worthy people in charge.

Hilarious - thinks watching a whole Youtube vid on Socrates makes him intellectually superior. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Socrates also wanted to ban Homer, stating that the battle scenes and misery of war depicted in The Iliad would dissuade people from going to war for the State. He was basically a fascist,  which explains why you like him. 

Henry Ford hated Jews, that odious fact cannot however take away from the fact that his foresightedness revolutionized the world.

 

But that’s going to be a difficult concept for the binary thinker down here to grasp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Lol

Yer an ejit of the highest order, congratulations.

 

ps. Biden is a sweet shop owner.

Nothing sadder than a man who thinks he's of superior intelligence and has to broadcast his belief as an anon user on an internet forum. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Nothing sadder than a man who thinks he's of superior intelligence and has to broadcast his belief as an anon user on an internet forum. :rolleyes:

Thinking that one’s intelligence is superior to that of the average punter down here is not necessarily a boast.

 

Just saying....

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

Thinking that one’s intelligence is superior to that of the average punter down here is not necessarily a boast.

 

Just saying....

you're just one of many then.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea warrior said:

Henry Ford hated Jews, that odious fact cannot however take away from the fact that his foresightedness revolutionized the world.

 

But that’s going to be a difficult concept for the binary thinker down here to grasp.

I've read Plato. Plenty of him. Also the pre-socratics. Plato was a fascist.  And his metaphysics are shit. 

He influenced non fascist thinkers, but he was still a fascist fuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Depends on who's doing the deciding. There are strict constitutionalists, who believe that the words as written are inviolate, There are others who believe that the constitution is fluid, and should change, and grow with the times. This is why there are amendments to the constitution, and why sometimes those amendments are superseded.

 

And there are, as I keep pointing out, 2 perfectly good methods for amending or repealing constitutional clauses/amendments.

But nobody wants to go there because it opens up a big can of worms.

Whatever.

Anyway this shit is why I keep saying that the No 1 strategic priority, above everything else, is TO FIX YOUR DYSFUNCTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM!

And every time I say it, silence reigns. Because fundamentally none of you want to fix it, you just want to have your own thumbs on the scales.

So - suck it up. No real sympathy. Except that when the alt-right religious nutcases take over because they're better, more ruthless, whatever, at fucking with the electoral system and grabbing power, we all, everywhere on the planet, are going to suffer.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

And there are, as I keep pointing out, 2 perfectly good methods for amending or repealing constitutional clauses/amendments.

But nobody wants to go there because it opens up a big can of worms.

Whatever.

Anyway this shit is why I keep saying that the No 1 strategic priority, above everything else, is TO FIX YOUR DYSFUNCTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM!

And every time I say it, silence reigns. Because fundamentally none of you want to fix it, you just want to have your own thumbs on the scales.

So - suck it up. No real sympathy. Except that when the alt-right religious nutcases take over because they're better, more ruthless, whatever, at fucking with the electoral system and grabbing power, we all, everywhere on the planet, are going to suffer.

FKT

I’m all for fixing it, and the NPV is the most obvious way.

of course, we still have the 1 acre/1 vote senate but unless there’s a war or some flyover states merge, we’re kinda stuck with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

I've read Plato. Plenty of him. Also the pre-socratics. Plato was a fascist.  And his metaphysics are shit. 

He influenced non fascist thinkers, but he was still a fascist fuck.

reminds me of the adage..


How do you know if someone is in CrossFit?
 

Dont worry, wait 5 minutes and they’ll be sure to tell you about it...

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

reminds me of the adage..


How do you know if someone is in CrossFit?
 

Dont worry, wait 5 minutes and they’ll be sure to tell you about it...

 

lol

 Don't Fret. I am sure you can learn more about Plato off of YouTube.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

1 acre 1 vote Mikey always says...

We had the referendum to direct vote come up in Colorado this past election, my two older kids asked me my opinion on it, I tried not to unduly influence them. Yes, we would have had Gore in office rather than G.W. with the direct vote, but the EC does have some benefits that allow otherwise disenfranchised people to create an outsized influence.

If you want the direct vote, then advocate it, but it seems like a sure way to me to bypass whatever marginal influence the States have left. And with the era of work-from-home and a highly mobile kind of life for younger people, living small, and living cheap, the ability to "vote with their feet" seems more important now than it did in the 1800s ... well-run, progressive State governments should be rewarded.

After Colorado legalized recreational weed, we had a huge number of young people move here and they made Colorado a better place in my opinion. A move to the direct vote would plunge our "flyover" states into even greater insignificance in the voting process.

Also, remember that the vote for public office is one of our three votes in the USA, we also have our grand jury vote, and our jury vote. In both of those cases, one motivated voter can hang a jury and change poorly-conceived and unethical laws. The idea of one vote still meaning something is more consistent with the EC than the direct vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

We had the referendum to direct vote come up in Colorado this past election, my two older kids asked me my opinion on it, I tried not to unduly influence them. Yes, we would have had Gore in office rather than G.W. with the direct vote, but the EC does have some benefits that allow otherwise disenfranchised people to create an outsized influence.

If you want the direct vote, then advocate it, but it seems like a sure way to me to bypass whatever marginal influence the States have left. And with the era of work-from-home and a highly mobile kind of life for younger people, living small, and living cheap, the ability to "vote with their feet" seems more important now than it did in the 1800s ... well-run, progressive State governments should be rewarded.

After Colorado legalized recreational weed, we had a huge number of young people move here and they made Colorado a better place in my opinion. A move to the direct vote would plunge our "flyover" states into even greater insignificance in the voting process.

Also, remember that the vote for public office is one of our three votes in the USA, we also have our grand jury vote, and our jury vote. In both of those cases, one motivated voter can hang a jury and change poorly-conceived and unethical laws. The idea of one vote still meaning something is more consistent with the EC than the direct vote.

Those votes are only cast by people selected by attorneys to sit on juries, not the general public.

 A jury of your peers, is very likely not to be a jury of your peers.

A person accused of murder is very unlikely to be adjudicated by a person accused of murder, but acquitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Those votes are only cast by people selected by attorneys to sit on juries, not the general public.

 A jury of your peers, is very likely not to be a jury of your peers.

A person accused of murder is very unlikely to be adjudicated by a person accused of murder, but acquitted.

Murder? There isn't a lot of jury rebellion for murder. How many people disagree with the laws on murder?

But drug laws? Jury nullification is a powerful tool in overturning these laws, and it's the general public, assigned to those juries that make this happen ... https://www.flexyourrights.org/jury-nullification-drug-war-demise/

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

 

Anyway, even if you don't have time for the link, at least watch a minute of the video, I started this one at the right time, the jury in an alcohol case simply drank the alcohol and destroyed the evidence ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

 

Sorry, there is but 1 national election. It should be 1 person 1 vote. The senate adequately represents 1 acre 1 vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Sorry, there is but 1 national election. It should be 1 person 1 vote. The senate adequately represents 1 acre 1 vote.

That's nonsense, both historically and mathematically. In fact, it's more accurately inversely proportional to acreage, which is why Wyoming and Alaska barely count, and NY and Florida have decided entire elections.

But if you want to change it, then change it, that's within both your rights and your sphere of influence as an American voter. I'll vote against it in my state, but if you want direct election in your state, you'll need to take your argument off of Sailing Anarchy and to your state's voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Sorry, there is but 1 national election. It should be 1 person 1 vote. The senate adequately represents 1 acre 1 vote.

The US Senate is one of the many anti-majoritarian devices built into the constitution, 

as is the Electoral College. 

The EC was designed from the start to empower southern whites, and it still does so. 

It's origins were racist . .  and it continues to perform the function of white racial privilege 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Sorry, there is but 1 national election. It should be 1 person 1 vote. The senate adequately represents 1 acre 1 vote.

Yes, same as ours. That's a feature not a bug. It ensures that the big cities can't totally dominate political decisions and the big States can't dominate the small ones. In a federation of States each State should have equal voting power.

WRT Presidential votes, your argument has a lot more merit. The EC is a holdover from when the population was largely illiterate. Mind you with your education system that's probably only another 2 generations in the future.

However this is still second order stuff. You guys need to fix the voting SYSTEM. That means, IMO:

Fixing disenfranchisement. Suggestions:

Making it simple to register to get on the electoral roll. And making it harder for officials to toss someone off the roll.

Making sure there is a polling station maximum spacing so people can actually get to one.

Making sure polling stations are staffed according to population density.

Making polling station hours are reasonable.

Then move on to fixing gerrymandering which isn't actually difficult if there's political will on at least one side. Currently there isn't - both sides do it and point at the others. One side has been more 'successful' but it's still a blight that needs to be fixed properly & permanently. So just fucking do it.

Getting more people to actually vote. Tossing this out as I've no idea how you can do that. Here it's accepted that on Saturday of the election you just go & vote, if you haven't voted earlier. But you do it. It's a civic responsibility.

Anyway I find it interesting that none, as in zero, of you want to discuss or propose methods to deal with the problems at this level. So - shrug. Keep shuffling those deckchairs, guys.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yes, same as ours. That's a feature not a bug. It ensures that the big cities can't totally dominate political decisions and the big States can't dominate the small ones. In a federation of States each State should have equal voting power.

WRT Presidential votes, your argument has a lot more merit. The EC is a holdover from when the population was largely illiterate. Mind you with your education system that's probably only another 2 generations in the future.

However this is still second order stuff. You guys need to fix the voting SYSTEM. That means, IMO:

Fixing disenfranchisement. Suggestions:

Making it simple to register to get on the electoral roll. And making it harder for officials to toss someone off the roll.

Making sure there is a polling station maximum spacing so people can actually get to one.

Making sure polling stations are staffed according to population density.

Making polling station hours are reasonable.

Then move on to fixing gerrymandering which isn't actually difficult if there's political will on at least one side. Currently there isn't - both sides do it and point at the others. One side has been more 'successful' but it's still a blight that needs to be fixed properly & permanently. So just fucking do it.

Getting more people to actually vote. Tossing this out as I've no idea how you can do that. Here it's accepted that on Saturday of the election you just go & vote, if you haven't voted earlier. But you do it. It's a civic responsibility.

Anyway I find it interesting that none, as in zero, of you want to discuss or propose methods to deal with the problems at this level. So - shrug. Keep shuffling those deckchairs, guys.

FKT

The challenge is that exact same Stites Rites woofers is parroting. In California I don’t need to identify with a party, I registered once 20+ years ago and changed to mail votes maybe 10 years ago. Easy peasy. I can’t do anything about the states which Republican majorities playing voter access games rather than broadening their base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

The challenge is that exact same Stites Rites woofers is parroting. In California I don’t need to identify with a party, I registered once 20+ years ago and changed to mail votes maybe 10 years ago. Easy peasy. I can’t do anything about the states which Republican majorities playing voter access games rather than broadening their base.

So your choices reduce to accepting that you and by extension your country's electoral system is fucked, or pushing for a constitutional convention to fix the problem.

Which is where we started and nobody has the stomach to do that.

So - shrug.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting politicians to vote against their best interests is unlikely.

Politicians could be school teachers, or store keepers, or the spawn of wealthy philanthropists, furthering their parent's goals. But politicians, by and large, are unemployable by anyone but the govt.

I've known several highly ranked politicians, and I'm pretty sure my grade school librarian could have beaten them down in a simple debate.

 These generally aren't "smart" people, they're clever people, who are good at manipulating others.

 And I'm not speaking about US Republican/Democrat only, I'm speaking about politicians all across the globe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So your choices reduce to accepting that you and by extension your country's electoral system is fucked, or pushing for a constitutional convention to fix the problem.

Which is where we started and nobody has the stomach to do that.

So - shrug.

FKT

A Connie convention would bring out ALL the crazies. Best to do it one amendment at a time. NPV is a start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So your choices reduce to accepting that you and by extension your country's electoral system is fucked, or pushing for a constitutional convention to fix the problem.

Which is where we started and nobody has the stomach to do that.

So - shrug.

FKT

The Republicans will never give up their advantages voluntarily. Gerrymandering and vote suppression combined with the EC give them a substantial lead right out of the box. You can pry those out of their cold dead hands. As Trump said - one of the few truthful things he has uttered - if they let everyone vote the Republicans would never win again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, mikewof said:

Murder? There isn't a lot of jury rebellion for murder. How many people disagree with the laws on murder?

But drug laws? Jury nullification is a powerful tool in overturning these laws, and it's the general public, assigned to those juries that make this happen ... https://www.flexyourrights.org/jury-nullification-drug-war-demise/

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

 

Anyway, even if you don't have time for the link, at least watch a minute of the video, I started this one at the right time, the jury in an alcohol case simply drank the alcohol and destroyed the evidence ...

 

Nullification is powerful. Also exceedingly rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

WTF does jury nullification have to do 

with voting rights ?? 

Not much 

Ummmm - you're expecting something, anything, on point from Mikey?

Good luck with that, it'd be a first.

Now - what's your opinion(s) on what should be done to deal with voter suppression and gerrymandering?

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Now - what's your opinion(s) on what should be done to deal with voter suppression and gerrymandering?

Well, firstly I would point out that your past rudeness does not engender much enthusiasm for a polite response. 

But nonetheless, since it is after all your empire too, I respect that you have a voice. 

There are actually whole literatures on the questions that you have raised . . 

As to the former, aggressive federal action might help (with onerous ID requirements for example, and the purging of voter roles), 

addressing gerrymandering might well take a SCOTUS court packing to get it done. 

What should be done ? Well, I try my best to make it happen, but my efforts generally make 

Don Quixote look efficacious. 

But I will not give up. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, firstly I would point out that your past rudeness does not engender much enthusiasm for a polite response. 

But nonetheless, since it is after all your empire too, I respect that you have a voice. 

There are actually whole literatures on the questions that you have raised . . 

As to the former, aggressive federal action might help (with onerous ID requirements for example, and the purging of voter roles), 

addressing gerrymandering might well take a SCOTUS court packing to get it done. 

What should be done ? Well, I try my best to make it happen, but my efforts generally make 

Don Quixote look efficacious. 

But I will not give up. 

 

So, basically nothing. Sorry, no concrete suggestions other than stacking the Supreme Court. Not trying to be rude (for once) but if I parse out what you wrote, that's what I get.

And, sorry, I wasn't asking how to implement voter suppression which seems to be the point of "aggressive federal action might help (with onerous ID requirements for example, and the purging of voter roles" - I'd be interested in your suggestions on how to *PREVENT* it happening. Adults, IMO should vote.

To be clear, I would vastly prefer to see as close to 100% of adults voting as is possible to achieve, and voting in evenly numerically weighted electorates with minimum boundary lengths. This addresses the elements of gerrymandering and malapportionment of voters to electorates.

Then let the chips fall where they may. If the electorate insists on choosing idiots then they deserve the outcomes.

You guys seem to think this sort of electoral system is impossible to achieve because none of you are even interested in putting forward concrete suggestions as to doing it. I must say that I'm disappointed. Australia has had very close to this all my life. We have our share of problems but the legitimacy of an election has never been questioned, even by fruitcakes like Clive Palmer when he's lost in a landslide despite spending a shit-ton of money.

I will probably now revert to being my usual irreverent and sarcastic self....

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Nullification is powerful. Also exceedingly rare. 

True. How much of its rarity is due to its power?

Isn't the cliche that prosecution will avoid trial if they think the jury will fail to convict?

This guy used nullification twice, I can only assume that has given fuel to the fire in NJ for legalization.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

WTF does jury nullification have to do 

with voting rights ?? 

Not much 

Per the Supreme Court, a juror's vote on a jury or grand jury can decide on the facts and the law itself.

We have three votes in the USA: Jury, Grand Jury, Public Office.

Americans who don't know about their voting rights on a jury and grand jury, are somewhat toothless, and paper tigers.

Link to post
Share on other sites