The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Purple]

It people choose to piss away their rights, that's their call in the end. Forcing them to vote, a lot of the time, would just mean them spoiling their ballot or leaving it blank (and no way to prove who did that without violating the concept of a secret ballot).

There are mechanisms to ensure they vote properly though. Like for example* you could instead of ballots have small metal balls and have the voting process involve putting the ballot inside one of a number of boxes inside a booth. Each box representing a candidate. Than have everyone walk through a metal detector on exit.


* Yes, I know this sounds dumb. But like I was making an example up off the top of my head.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suppose.

Still seems undemocratic and heavy handed to jail people for not voting though.

[Broomstick]

Those blue states are by no means guaranteed to the Democrats.

Nor are the red states guaranteed to anyone - Indiana surprised the hell out of everyone by voting for Obama one general election.

[Purple]

I suppose.

Still seems undemocratic and heavy handed to jail people for not voting though.

I don't know. Honestly I think it's undemocratic not to have some way of punishing those that refuse to take part in the processes of a democracy. I mean, you are literally punishing them for not being democratic. How can that be anything but democratic?

Although I would not go as far as jailing them. I'd just have a fine. Or maybe a special tax that you have to pay each month until next elections.

Now I would jail those people who refuse to vote but than still act out in public political actions afterward. Like if you don't want to vote but you do want the right to protest the government you refused to effect when you have the chance? That's undemocratic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Those blue states are by no means guaranteed to the Democrats.

Nor are the red states guaranteed to anyone - Indiana surprised the hell out of everyone by voting for Obama one general election.

I've also seen claims (though I am skeptical) that Utah and Arizona could be competitive this year, and some polling apparently has Clinton winning North Carolina right now.

I think in a Donald vs. Clinton election (and probably even more in a Donald vs. Sanders election), the usual lines don't really apply.

[Grumman]

It people choose to piss away their rights, that's their call in the end. Forcing them to vote, a lot of the time, would just mean them spoiling their ballot or leaving it blank (and no way to prove who did that without violating the concept of a secret ballot).

Or they'd vote for Aaron A. Aaronson just because his name is at the top of the list.
Or they'd vote for the Abolish Thirty Days In Jail For Not Voting Party.

Punishing people for not voting is stupid. If somebody is not voting, it means that they do not believe the cost of voting is worth the benefit - either because they're too busy working to survive, or because they do not know which is the better candidate, or because you have not given them an option that reflects their preferences. None of those problems are fixed by forcing them to vote.

Now I would jail those people who refuse to vote but than still act out in public political actions afterward. Like if you don't want to vote but you do want the right to protest the government you refused to effect when you have the chance? That's undemocratic.

That's still fucking stupid. The Republicans and Democrats are still conspiring with each other to fix the Presidential debates, and have been for thirty years. Why should refusing to give your vote to them mean you're not allowed to criticise them?

[Flagg]

For someone who's living paycheque to paycheque, a thirty-day jail sentence can basically destroy their life.

That's like holding a gun to someone's head to make them vote. Not exactly what I'd call democratic.

It people choose to piss away their rights, that's their call in the end. Forcing them to vote, a lot of the time, would just mean them spoiling their ballot or leaving it blank (and no way to prove who did that without violating the concept of a secret ballot).

If they can't afford a 30 day jail stint, then all the more reason to cast a ballot. You don't have to vote for anyone on the ballot, you can fucking write in "Dirk Diggler" for all I care, but fucking participate. That said, I'd only put the jail sentence into effect by making it a fuckton easier to vote. Like making Election Day a holiday and mail-in ballots. But the only responsibility aside from paying taxes you have as a citizen in a democracy is to cast a ballot, and there are far heavier penalties for tax evasion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, not to nitpick, but their are a number of other responsibilities as citizens (or at least potential responsibilities as citizens, depending on circumstances). Obeying the law in general, obviously, but more specifically, jury duty and signing up for the Selective Service (if male) come to mind.

[Flagg]

It people choose to piss away their rights, that's their call in the end. Forcing them to vote, a lot of the time, would just mean them spoiling their ballot or leaving it blank (and no way to prove who did that without violating the concept of a secret ballot).

Or they'd vote for Aaron A. Aaronson just because his name is at the top of the list.
Or they'd vote for the Abolish Thirty Days In Jail For Not Voting Party.

Punishing people for not voting is stupid. If somebody is not voting, it means that they do not believe the cost of voting is worth the benefit - either because they're too busy working to survive, or because they do not know which is the better candidate, or because you have not given them an option that reflects their preferences. None of those problems are fixed by forcing them to vote.

Now I would jail those people who refuse to vote but than still act out in public political actions afterward. Like if you don't want to vote but you do want the right to protest the government you refused to effect when you have the chance? That's undemocratic.

That's still fucking stupid. The Republicans and Democrats are still conspiring with each other to fix the Presidential debates, and have been for thirty years. Why should refusing to give your vote to them mean you're not allowed to criticise them?

Did it ever occur to you that forced participation in democracy might just make people educate themselves and even change the status quo and destroy the 2 party system we have now?

[Flagg]

Well, not to nitpick, but their are a number of other responsibilities as citizens (or at least potential responsibilities as citizens, depending on circumstances). Obeying the law in general, obviously, but more specifically, jury duty and signing up for the Selective Service (if male) come to mind.

And you are penalized for shirking either of those, why should voting be any different?

[Purple]

Punishing people for not voting is stupid. If somebody is not voting, it means that they do not believe the cost of voting is worth the benefit - either because they're too busy working to survive, or because they do not know which is the better candidate, or because you have not given them an option that reflects their preferences. None of those problems are fixed by forcing them to vote.

Just to chime in here. I think that it should be the duty of the country to ensure there are no significant costs to voting. That means ensuring it happens on Sundays or that the law dictates you have to get a day off to do so and stuff like that.

That's still fucking stupid. The Republicans and Democrats are still conspiring with each other to fix the Presidential debates, and have been for thirty years. Why should refusing to give your vote to them mean you're not allowed to criticise them?

Because that is how democracies work. When you go to vote you get a piece of paper in front of you and those are your only options. One of those listed is going to be in power. End of story. You don't have an option to go "none of the above". That's not how democracy works. And people need to realize that. The sooner they get this immutable fact of life through their head the sooner they will stop pretending like there is such a thing as a "protest vote" and actually start doing things that will put the kind of people they actually would like to vote for into the system.

[Mr Bean]

Because that is how democracies work. When you go to vote you get a piece of paper in front of you and those are your only options. One of those listed is going to be in power. End of story. You don't have an option to go "none of the above". That's not how democracy works. And people need to realize that. The sooner they get this immutable fact of life through their head the sooner they will stop pretending like there is such a thing as a "protest vote" and actually start doing things that will put the kind of people they actually would like to vote for into the system.

Actually Arizona has none of the above voting, the original idea was if None of the Above won then everyone lost, no one gets the seat and another set of people get to run. It's not how it ended up, a None of the above vote is a null vote except for party primaries where None of the Above means the party sends no one to contest a seat. I believe that got changed as well after None of the Above won a few victories.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC in democratic states with mandatory voting (aka all have to vote) IIRC swiss being like this, it just added the number of "junk" votes, like votes for invalid candidates (like Donald Duck or Jeesus of Nazareth), dick pics and other stuff that make the vote unuseble.


oh and Protest votes exist, it's a reason the True Finns (Perussuomalaiset in finish) got into the power the first place and is major reason for their failing success, since the total reworking within the politics of Finland that people voting for them hoped for didn't happen. Oh and that's just a major party, there's plenty minor parties with no hope ever getting elected and little to no plans if they would that get the few votes in protest of the current major parties

[Flagg]

IIRC in democratic states with mandatory voting (aka all have to vote) IIRC swiss being like this, it just added the number of "junk" votes, like votes for invalid candidates (like Donald Duck or Jeesus of Nazareth), dick pics and other stuff that make the vote unuseble.

So you shouldn't compel people to vote because a minority of dipshits crap in the punchbowl? If that's the best argument against mandatory voting, then there should be mandatory voting.

[Purple]

Actually Arizona has none of the above voting, the original idea was if None of the Above won then everyone lost, no one gets the seat and another set of people get to run. It's not how it ended up, a None of the above vote is a null vote except for party primaries where None of the Above means the party sends no one to contest a seat. I believe that got changed as well after None of the Above won a few victories.

That's an interesting system to have. IN that case I stand corrected as far as Arizona is concerned. Although that still leaves most of the rest of the democratic world. And I will admit that some of the rage in that post is me projecting my own grievances about how things are going where I am from. TLDR people are the exact same type of idiot no matter where in the world you go. And although it's not election year like in america this topic digs up some old grievances for me.

IIRC in democratic states with mandatory voting (aka all have to vote) IIRC swiss being like this, it just added the number of "junk" votes, like votes for invalid candidates (like Donald Duck or Jeesus of Nazareth), dick pics and other stuff that make the vote unuseble.

So you shouldn't compel people to vote because a minority of dipshits crap in the punchbowl? If that's the best argument against mandatory voting, then there should be mandatory voting.

I agree. I mean, this is something that you can screen against with trivial ease as I demonstrated already. So if that's the only argument they can muster that's no argument at all.

[Soontir C'boath]

We seem to be forgetting that states are passing and upholding voter ID laws that are preventing people from casting a ballot. This would be a Republican's wet dream as they can jail the Democratic voters they targeted with those laws. Plus, it may also depend on how elections are formatted. For instance in New York, we have the presidential, federal, and state/local primaries all of which are on separate dates and designed that way to deter voter turnout for Democrat and Republican races alike. Then there is the fact that we do not have early voting or the use of an unrestricted mail-in ballot. Sure, there is a law in the books that "deters" employers from not letting employees vote, but a person working $9 an hour is not exactly in a position to litigate.

On another note, any new voters must register a month in advance and those who wish to change parties will have it done after the upcoming general election.

One would think New York would be a bastion of democracy, but it is not.

[Gandalf]

For someone who's living paycheque to paycheque, a thirty-day jail sentence can basically destroy their life.

That's like holding a gun to someone's head to make them vote. Not exactly what I'd call democratic.

It people choose to piss away their rights, that's their call in the end. Forcing them to vote, a lot of the time, would just mean them spoiling their ballot or leaving it blank (and no way to prove who did that without violating the concept of a secret ballot).

We have compulsory voting in Australia, punished with fines. The number of spoiled ballots is less than 6%.

[Flagg]

We seem to be forgetting that states are passing and upholding voter ID laws that are preventing people from casting a ballot. This would be a Republican's wet dream as they can jail the Democratic voters they targeted with those laws. Plus, it may also depend on how elections are formatted. For instance in New York, we have the presidential, federal, and state/local primaries all of which are on separate dates and designed that way to deter voter turnout for Democrat and Republican races alike. Then there is the fact that we do not have early voting or the use of an unrestricted mail-in ballot. Sure, there is a law in the books that "deters" employers from not letting employees vote, but a person working $9 an hour is not exactly in a position to litigate.

On another note, any new voters must register a month in advance and those who wish to change parties will have it done after the upcoming general election.

One would think New York would be a bastion of democracy, but it is not.

Yeah, but I'm talking about an imaginary world where voting is encouraged for everyone, not just those casting a ballot for Returdlickers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, Bernie's made a big deal about increasing voter turnout. He's advocated making election day a national holiday (presumably so people have more time to vote), and I believe he's criticized voter registration restrictions and called for everyone eligible to automatically be registered to vote as well.

[Flagg]

Well, Bernie's made a big deal about increasing voter turnout. He's advocated making election day a national holiday (presumably so people have more time to vote), and I believe he's criticized voter registration restrictions and called for everyone eligible to automatically be registered to vote as well.

Who cares? His campaign is a dead horse and all he's doing is beating on it and damaging Clinton, who will be the nominee. So with Trump the Returdlickers presumptive nominee, all that prostitute Sanders is doing is hurting the chances of a Democratic Party victory. Not that he cares since he's not a Democrat.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, for all this talk about how he is damaging Clinton, as if he is obligated to just step aside despite the fact that it is still theoretically possible for him to win, he just won another state, a bunch of states have yet to vote, and he promised to stay in until the end, polling shows that the majority of Democrats favour him staying in, and Clinton herself isn't telling him to get out.

So maybe stop beating your own dead horse of how much you hate Sanders for supposedly not being a real Democrat? Especially since factually he is a Democrat now, has formally joined the Democratic candidate, and will, according to one of his top people, remain a Democrat even if he's not the nominee.

It is a simple statement of fact- Sanders is a real Democrat, by any standard other than personal opinion or No True Scotsman. Nowhere is it written that you don't count as a Democrat unless you were a Democrat for life.

Hell, I only joined the Democratic Party in 2010, having previously been independent. Does that make me not a real Democrat? Of course not.

Also, the claim that Sanders doesn't care about Trump winning is a flat-out lie, or at any rate unfounded speculation that contradicts Sanders' own statements.

[Ace Pace]

There is little evidence that a drawn out primary hurts the nominee. Not to mention Bernie isn't very rough on Hillary.

[Flagg]

You know, for all this talk about how he is damaging Clinton, as if he is obligated to just step aside despite the fact that it is still theoretically possible for him to win, he just won another state, a bunch of states have yet to vote, and he promised to stay in until the end, polling shows that the majority of Democrats favour him staying in, and Clinton herself isn't telling him to get out.

So maybe stop beating your own dead horse of how much you hate Sanders for supposedly not being a real Democrat? Especially since factually he is a Democrat now, has formally joined the Democratic candidate, and will, according to one of his top people, remain a Democrat even if he's not the nominee.

It is a simple statement of fact- Sanders is a real Democrat, by any standard other than personal opinion or No True Scotsman. Nowhere is it written that you don't count as a Democrat unless you were a Democrat for life.

Hell, I only joined the Democratic Party in 2010, having previously been independent. Does that make me not a real Democrat? Of course not.

Also, the claim that Sanders doesn't care about Trump winning is a flat-out lie, or at any rate unfounded speculation that contradicts Sanders' own statements.

He's a democrat for the money and exposure. But if you honestly believe he's going to stay a democrat when he goes back to the senate I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

[Raw Shark]

He'd lose a lot of credibility if he didn't stay after promising to. Too much. Win or lose, the Bern is a Democrat now. I'm saddened that it had to happen this way for him to even participate, but it happened. He made a pragmatic decision, and that is something that all politicians have to do. At least it wasn't to line his pockets. Speaking as a convert with a certain measure of idealism and cynicism myself, I trust him on this one. If he was really a whore, Wall Street's dick would be deep-throating him right now in his hour of desperation.

[Flagg]

He'd lose a lot of credibility if he didn't stay after promising to. Too much. Win or lose, the Bern is a Democrat now. I'm saddened that it had to happen this way for him to even participate, but it happened. He made a pragmatic decision, and that is something that all politicians have to do. At least it wasn't to line his pockets. Speaking as a convert with a certain measure of idealism and cynicism myself, I trust him on this one. If he was really a whore, Wall Street's dick would be deep-throating him right now in his hour of desperation.

Well "WALL STREET BAAAAD!!!" Is his one and only platform so it would totally undermine his entire reason for existing as a democrat for money. He's a prostitute, not a moron.