2024 Elections Thread

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^^

Keeping Trump out of the White House is a very worthy cause in and of itself. This is a guy who literally tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election through extrajudicial means and political violence; who rose on the political scene with the idiotic and racist birther conspiracy; who calls women dogs and fat pigs; who calls the press the enemy of the people. He is a disgrace to the office and an embarrassment to the country.

[ciao_yall]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Forcing choice and its expression is a Left tactic to suggest and instill mass solidarity, which would affect the outcome of an election.

Forget about it.

As I've said for eight years, the only issue the Democrats have is Trump.

Trump isn't the Democrat's problem. D's have plenty of ideas.

Trump is the R problem because they don't have other any candidates who appeal to voters.

[AmLitHist]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Maybe not.  But you and 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 others not voting DOES matter, both nationally and in more localized situations. We've seen this in recent years; it's not an abstraction.

[Puget]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Maybe not.  But you and 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 others not voting DOES matter, both nationally and in more localized situations. We've seen this in recent years; it's not an abstraction.

AmLitHist, +1

dismalist, apply your rational to literary anything else and see how dumb it sounds. e.g., "The chance of one theft determining the outcome of this business is zero, so go ahead and steal!". We live in a society. The deal is each person has to act like their individual actions matter because collectively they do. If you don't like that, you can find your own island.

[apl68]

Trump has a very disturbing cult following, all right, but the great majority of those who will vote for him aren't cultists.  They just feel, for whatever reasons--and there are different ones for different voters--that he's the lesser of two evils. 

Me, I don't believe that I can vote for anybody at the national level in good conscience.  So I won't, and I urge anybody who will listen not to support either candidate either.

I get that you can't get enthused about either candidate and I also understand that many of the folks voting for Trump are not cultists, but come on with this "I can't take a side with good conscience" stuff. This guy has ruined the Republican party and done enormous damage to American democracy. He literally tried to overturn the last election by extrajudicial and violent means (how directly he can be legally tied to the violence at the capital is questionable, but obviously he egged it on including with all the lies about voter fraud). Harris has policies you don't like - ok I get that - but come on man, do what you can to help us move past this guy so that we can get back to some normalcy in the country.

Or don't. It is your choice of course. But I will never understand this principled stand against taking a side when one of the candidates is so clearly a menace.

Amen. If you live in a completely non-competitive state then fine, do whatever you want. But if your state is competitive you need to recognize that not making a choice IS a choice. You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

So who do I vote for, then?  The would-be fascist dictator?  Or the party whose number-one issue this time around is death to the unborn, without restrictions anywhere?  Which the would-be dictator has made it clear that he's personally perfectly okay with too.  There are other issues as well, but this is the one that most stands out.  I will say it again--there are no choices in this year's national election that I and others I know can vote for in good conscience.  So please count me out of it. 

And before anybody here lectures me about those who only care about children before they're born, I and a number of other pro-life supporters I know do put considerable amounts of our own personal resources into trying to make life better for children who need help in life, as opposed to simply saying "let the government do it."  Although as a public librarian and an employee of "the government," I'm part of that effort too.

[dismalist]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Maybe not.  But you and 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 others not voting DOES matter, both nationally and in more localized situations. We've seen this in recent years; it's not an abstraction.

AmLitHist, +1

dismalist, apply your rational to literary anything else and see how dumb it sounds. e.g., "The chance of one theft determining the outcome of this business is zero, so go ahead and steal!". We live in a society. The deal is each person has to act like their individual actions matter because collectively they do. If you don't like that, you can find your own island.

Ah, the perils of arguing by analogy: Theft is of something someone else owns. I own my own vote. I use it the way I want, not the way someone else wants. There is no collective responsibility to vote, much less a responsibility to vote in a certain way.

[jimbogumbo]

apl68, I'm sorry but that " without restrictions, any time" line is just false. That has NEVER been the Democrat proposal, anywhere.

[Puget]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Maybe not.  But you and 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 others not voting DOES matter, both nationally and in more localized situations. We've seen this in recent years; it's not an abstraction.

AmLitHist, +1

dismalist, apply your rational to literary anything else and see how dumb it sounds. e.g., "The chance of one theft determining the outcome of this business is zero, so go ahead and steal!". We live in a society. The deal is each person has to act like their individual actions matter because collectively they do. If you don't like that, you can find your own island.

Ah, the perils of arguing by analogy: Theft is of something someone else owns. I own my own vote. I use it the way I want, not the way someone else wants. There is no collective responsibility to vote, much less a responsibility to vote in a certain way.

You really think there is no collective responsibility to vote in a democracy? Alright then, I guess I'm glad you choose not to vote then, given the alternative it is the lessor of evils if you sit it out.

[dismalist]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Maybe not.  But you and 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 others not voting DOES matter, both nationally and in more localized situations. We've seen this in recent years; it's not an abstraction.

AmLitHist, +1

dismalist, apply your rational to literary anything else and see how dumb it sounds. e.g., "The chance of one theft determining the outcome of this business is zero, so go ahead and steal!". We live in a society. The deal is each person has to act like their individual actions matter because collectively they do. If you don't like that, you can find your own island.

Ah, the perils of arguing by analogy: Theft is of something someone else owns. I own my own vote. I use it the way I want, not the way someone else wants. There is no collective responsibility to vote, much less a responsibility to vote in a certain way.

You really think there is no collective responsibility to vote in a democracy? Alright then, I guess I'm glad you choose not to vote then, given the alternative it is the lessor of evils if you sit it out.

Never said I wouldn't vote, just that it will not influence the outcome of the election no matter who I vote for or if I didn't vote. You can relax in all three cases. :-)

[Langue_doc]

People in a democracy have the right to vote or not vote as they see fit. They also have the right to vote for candidates regardless of their odiousness (not sure if this is a word). Those of you who are trying to shame, guilt-trip, or otherwise strongarm apl68 into agreeing to vote for a certain party/candidate, please start with your relatives, colleagues, and neighbors. I know people who voted/are going to vote for a certain candidate, but do not discuss politics with these individuals because they have the right to choose their candidates. Several of these individuals are people who in an emergency are far more likely than many of the virtue-signallers I know to help me and also others who don't share their affiliations/beliefs.

As I was coming out of the election area after voting for Hillary, I promised myself that I would never ever again vote for a candidate if I had to hold my nose in order to do so. I remembered that promise a year or two later as one of the local candidates I voted for, again with my nose up in the air out of disdain for said candidate, was accused and subsequently indicted on fraud charges. The lesser of the two evils is still evil.

Democrats aren't saints--see for instance the case of George Menendez who should have been in prison during the Obama era, but won by a large majority, and would probably have won again if it hadn't been for the pesky Justice Department arresting, trying, and then convicting him.

Our energies should be directed toward making the elections more democratic by removing the electoral college and also by revamping the Senate where Rhode Island, for instance, has the same clout as states with much larger populations such as NY, MA, CA, or TX.

[jimbogumbo]

To be clear, I always voted for P even though my vote overwhelmingly made no difference in my state as I most often go D and my state always went R. apl68 can vote or not as he chooses, and his vote will be much as mine was as his state is a lock for an R.


I think it will be virtually impossible to do away with the Electoral College, even though that would be my preference. As I've said previously, we would be better served as a country if we had open primaries with rank choice voting. That would make a huge difference in the tone of the House.

[dismalist]

Our energies should be directed toward making the elections more democratic by removing the electoral college and also by revamping the Senate where Rhode Island, for instance, has the same clout as states with much larger populations such as NY, MA, CA, or TX.

No, to win with an Electoral College you need a broader coalition of interests than with a popular majority. This is a good thing.

The Framers actually thought of the Electoral College as a seminar discussion group! Political parties put paid to that. We ain't gonna abolish them, for we don't thoroughly confront the issues in an informed way. This, on account it doesn't pay. The problem, as usual, is us.

As I've said previously, we would be better served as a country if we had open primaries with rank choice voting. That would make a huge difference in the tone of the House.

Then we wouldn't need general elections! I would prefer ranked choice voting in closed primaries. I'd prefer even more getting rid of most, but not all, primaries and having the decisions on candidates made in smoke filled rooms. Oh, the way we were!

[jimbogumbo]

Our energies should be directed toward making the elections more democratic by removing the electoral college and also by revamping the Senate where Rhode Island, for instance, has the same clout as states with much larger populations such as NY, MA, CA, or TX.

No, to win with an Electoral College you need a broader coalition of interests than with a popular majority. This is a good thing.

The Framers actually thought of the Electoral College as a seminar discussion group! Political parties put paid to that. We ain't gonna abolish them, for we don't thoroughly confront the issues in an informed way. This, on account it doesn't pay. The problem, as usual, is us.

As I've said previously, we would be better served as a country if we had open primaries with rank choice voting. That would make a huge difference in the tone of the House.

Then we wouldn't need general elections! I would prefer ranked choice voting in closed primaries. I'd prefer even more getting rid of most, but not all, primaries and having the decisions on candidates made in smoke filled rooms. Oh, the way we were!

I was thinking more in terms of primary the way Alaska and Washington conduct them. Then you would still need a general.

[dismalist]

Our energies should be directed toward making the elections more democratic by removing the electoral college and also by revamping the Senate where Rhode Island, for instance, has the same clout as states with much larger populations such as NY, MA, CA, or TX.

No, to win with an Electoral College you need a broader coalition of interests than with a popular majority. This is a good thing.

The Framers actually thought of the Electoral College as a seminar discussion group! Political parties put paid to that. We ain't gonna abolish them, for we don't thoroughly confront the issues in an informed way. This, on account it doesn't pay. The problem, as usual, is us.

As I've said previously, we would be better served as a country if we had open primaries with rank choice voting. That would make a huge difference in the tone of the House.

Then we wouldn't need general elections! I would prefer ranked choice voting in closed primaries. I'd prefer even more getting rid of most, but not all, primaries and having the decisions on candidates made in smoke filled rooms. Oh, the way we were!

I was thinking more in terms of primary the way Alaska and Washington conduct them. Then you would still need a general.

Open primaries cement cartels; closed primaries cement competition.

[ciao_yall]

Our energies should be directed toward making the elections more democratic by removing the electoral college and also by revamping the Senate where Rhode Island, for instance, has the same clout as states with much larger populations such as NY, MA, CA, or TX.

No, to win with an Electoral College you need a broader coalition of interests than with a popular majority. This is a good thing.

The Framers actually thought of the Electoral College as a seminar discussion group! Political parties put paid to that. We ain't gonna abolish them, for we don't thoroughly confront the issues in an informed way. This, on account it doesn't pay. The problem, as usual, is us.

As I've said previously, we would be better served as a country if we had open primaries with rank choice voting. That would make a huge difference in the tone of the House.

Then we wouldn't need general elections! I would prefer ranked choice voting in closed primaries. I'd prefer even more getting rid of most, but not all, primaries and having the decisions on candidates made in smoke filled rooms. Oh, the way we were!

I was thinking more in terms of primary the way Alaska and Washington conduct them. Then you would still need a general.

Open primaries cement cartels; closed primaries cement competition.

I like the Australian system where everyone is required by law to register and vote. Seems to make pols more centrist and maybe people think it's worth being informed.