2024 Elections Thread

[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.

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.

It does not change the voter's incentives. It's still not worth being informed. Political parties know this and try to herd you around emotionally. I suppose with forced voting political parties have more material to work with, though. That's probably why such silly laws were adopted.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

Democrats are not saints, to be sure, but the crimes of people like Menendez* are an order of magnitude different than the sitting president trying to overturn the results of an election with extrajudicial tactics and political violence - and who casually threatens to do so again! This is a challenge to the very foundation of democracy. And that is not even to speak of threatening to lock up anyone he doesn't like, calling the press the enemy of the people, normalizing casual racism and sexism, and creating a culture of fear so deep in the Republican party that their politicians pretend this is all normal and tell us that down is up and left is right - betraying their every supposed principle in the process.

And while you are certainly right that apl68 can vote as they please, we also have every right to make the case for picking the lesser of two evils in a situation where there are only two choices - and one of them is proudly an existential threat to the democratic system.

That all having been said, I do understand how abortion can be a hard line for conservatives. If you view this as murdering a person and you see one side promising to expand the right to do so, then I get how you might not be able to cast a vote for them.

* Who, I agree, should have been prosecuted years ago.

[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.

It does not change the voter's incentives. It's still not worth being informed. Political parties know this and try to herd you around emotionally. I suppose with forced voting political parties have more material to work with, though. That's probably why such silly laws were adopted.

Surprise - they still try to herd you emotionally in the current US system.

And some voters just check whatever box they feel like checking. Is that worse than being an ill-informed, emotional, single-issue voter?

[ciao_yall]

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.

Once those children are born, which candidate do you think will give them a better world to grow up in?

[spork]

In the USA, issue positions associated with political parties are frequently logically inconsistent. E.g., opposed to abortion yet in favor of the death penalty. The composition of each of the two major parties is collectively nonsensical, which is why the parties try to stimulate a sense of tribal affiliation ("we're doing God's work, the other side is evil") rather than advocate for pragmatic policy solutions.

[dismalist]

In the USA, issue positions associated with political parties are frequently logically inconsistent. E.g., opposed to abortion yet in favor of the death penalty. The composition of each of the two major parties is collectively nonsensical, which is why the parties try to stimulate a sense of tribal affiliation ("we're doing God's work, the other side is evil") rather than advocate for pragmatic policy solutions.

That's an important point. I wouldn't frame it as a matter of logic though. Often there are different people holding apparently inconsistent views, and they have to be brought into the same coalition. My favorite example is choice for abortion but not for schooling.

[Langue_doc]

Meandering? Off-Script? Trump Insists His 'Weave' Is Oratorical Genius.
Former President Donald J. Trump's speeches often wander from topic to topic. He insists there is an art to stitching them all together.

Some paragraphs from the article:

For weeks, former President Donald J. Trump's advisers have urged him to be more disciplined and to stop straying off-message.

But on Friday, while speaking at a rally in Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Trump insisted that his oratory is not a campaign distraction but rather a rhetorical triumph.

"You know, I do the weave," he said. "You know what the weave is? I'll talk about like nine different things, and they all come back brilliantly together, and it's like, friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say, 'It's the most brilliant thing I've ever seen.'"

Asked for examples of the technique, the Trump campaign provided what it called a "masterclass weave" — a four-minute, 20-second video of the candidate speaking at a rally in Asheville, N.C., in August in which he bounces from energy bills to Hunter Biden's laptop to Venezuelan tar to mental institutions in Caracas to migrant crime to "the green new scam" to Vice President Kamala Harris.

In its disjointed way, it did all sort of seem to wend back to why he thinks he should be president again.

His campaign did not identify which English professor friends of his had complimented his style.

"I highly doubt that Donald Trump has any English professor friends," said Timothy O'Brien, a Trump biographer. "What this really reflects is that he is aware of the criticism that he is publicly saying nonlinear, nonsensical word salad, and he is trying to pretend there is a strategy or logic behind it when there isn't."

The weave — a word more commonly associated with tapestry, tailoring and cosmetology — is a new formulation for Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president.

Certainly, in the history of narrative, there have been writers celebrated for their ability to be discursive only to cleverly tie together all their themes with a neat bow at the end — William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens and Larry David come to mind. But in the case of Mr. Trump, it is difficult to find the hermeneutic methods with which to parse the linguistic flights that take him from electrocuted sharks to Hannibal Lecter's cannibalism, windmills and Rosie O'Donnell.

James Shapiro, a professor of English at Columbia University and a renowned Shakespeare scholar, ruminated about Mr. Trump's use of the word: "I read Trump's comment bragging that 'I do the weave.' I take him at his word, as one of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of 'weave' is 'to pursue a devious course.'"

Drew Lichtenberg, a lecturer at Catholic University of America and an artistic producer at the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, said that "the closest comparison to what Trump is talking about here in Shakespeare — fragments of unrelated subjects that are woven together — is, of course, Lear's mad scene at Dover."

[marshwiggle]

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.

It's a different system in Canada, but the Senate is still more "balanced" by province than by population. This prevents (or reduces) the "tyranny of the cities". If everything was scaled by population, every decision would be based on what works for a handful of large cities. Vast parts of the country, including rural areas where most of our food comes from, would be totally ignored.

[Ruralguy]

Yet somehow, deviating from "one person, one vote" just seems like throwing in fudge factors to get your way when most people don't want it that way, whatever "it" is. Sure, the majority will make crappy decisions sometimes, but won't they always? That's a good reason for checks and balances, not undemocratic elections.

[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.

..

[ciao_yall]

Yet somehow, deviating from "one person, one vote" just seems like throwing in fudge factors to get your way when most people don't want it that way, whatever "it" is. Sure, the majority will make crappy decisions sometimes, but won't they always? That's a good reason for checks and balances, not undemocratic elections.

Why should rural voters have more power than urban voters? It's not as though city dwellers don't know where their food comes from.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

..

The Electoral College, it should be said, was a compromise that emerged in large part to give slaveholding states more electoral power. You could phrase that as you suggest, as a high-minded way to ensure broad stakeholder representation, but that obscures and sanitizes the reality of what was actually happening at the time.

That said, the EC is almost certainly not going anywhere anytime soon.

Yet somehow, deviating from "one person, one vote" just seems like throwing in fudge factors to get your way when most people don't want it that way, whatever "it" is. Sure, the majority will make crappy decisions sometimes, but won't they always? That's a good reason for checks and balances, not undemocratic elections.

Exactly. Checks and balances prevent tyranny of the majority. Giving the minority control of the government is just creating a misalignment between policy and voter preferences, creating a tyranny of the minority.

[dismalist]

It was the 3/5 clause gave the slave states more representation than "one free man, one vote" but less representation than "free men's vote counts as much as free men + slaves". Once that is in place the electoral college adds nothing to the power of slave states.

The electoral college was intended to keep the presidential election away from the people and involve the States. The justified fear was mob rule and loss of State infuence. Pity about the 17th Amendment. We have a republic, if we can keep it.

But the contemporary point remains: The variation of interests across States is larger than the variation of interests within States. Hence,the electoral College requires a broader coalition of interest than a popular, even if the popular vote is larger.

Put differently, I don't have to be ruled by California if I don't live there.

[Ruralguy]

Yet being ruled by Iowa presents no difficulties?

[dismalist]

Yet being ruled by Iowa presents no difficulties?

Iowa alone determines nothing. California alone determines much, much more. Get the point: It's variance in interests, not numbers of people.