|
Post by tod2 on Jan 23, 2017 12:28:50 GMT
[quote But I do feel strongly that an uneducated - and worse, misinformed - electorate leads to bad choices at the ballot box.[/quote]
That is exactly why our country is in such a pickle.
|
|
|
Post by chexbres on Jan 23, 2017 14:23:52 GMT
As long as Trump & Co insists on telling "alternative truths" instead of hard, cold factual information that can be verified, it's probable that the people who voted for him will believe anything - especially when Trump's representatives get themselves all riled up when they can't find a way to deflect the actual question:
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Jan 23, 2017 14:26:40 GMT
In case it wasn't clear, I wasnt seriously advocating for a voter civics test, it was more wishful thinking.
Now, members of the President's cabinet and perhaps even those running for office, should be able to pass this sort of test.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Jan 23, 2017 14:37:49 GMT
Another topic touching on voter competence is the elderly, who may continue receiving ballots in the mail year after year, continuing beyond declining mental competence.
In fact, after Mr. Kimby's father entered the nursing home, mostly blind and deaf, and unable to keep up with current events, his ballot was still being mailed to the apartment he had shared with his wife, who in theory could vote BOTH their ballots, with no one the wiser.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 16:35:23 GMT
Perhaps this is why I like the Canadian system: no mailed ballots ever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 18:54:14 GMT
This IS funny: well done Netherlands! (turn on the English subtitles)
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 23, 2017 19:22:21 GMT
That's great, Lizzy. I just sent the link to some Dutch friends.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 23, 2017 22:32:59 GMT
That was hilarious. I loved the little shot of Wall and Nassau Streets, both names of Dutch origin (a defensive wall that became a location for trading, and the Orange-Nassau royal family).
I was in Amsterdam during Katrina, and the Dutch couldn't fathom how another wealthy country could leave New Orleans so unprotected and the levées in such bad repair.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 6:03:51 GMT
There is a fully subtitled version available now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 15:19:46 GMT
The other one was fully subtitled, you just had to turn them on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 16:18:46 GMT
Hysterical!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 29, 2017 4:29:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 30, 2017 1:55:17 GMT
Hopefully Trump will NOT be, though he applied the day after his inauguration so he could keep on having campaign rallies and raising money. Which is WAY more fun than actually governing once you've gotten yourself elected.
Anyway, a convicted felon cannot run for POTUS, and that's where I suspect our current president is headed.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 9, 2018 20:02:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 27, 2018 14:16:12 GMT
It might be time to start waking up this thread with the approach of the mid-term elections.
This week I was fascinated to read that the Democrats were getting rid of the power of "super delegates." I didn't even know what they were until I started reading the articles, but here is the list: former presidents, congressional leaders and big-money fundraisers to mayors, labor leaders and longtime local party functionaries.
Super delegates could vote at the convention however they felt without taking into consideration the results of the primaries. Wow, this is even better than the electoral college.
Land of freedon!
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Aug 27, 2018 14:34:14 GMT
So are all my American friends on here Democrats?
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 27, 2018 15:28:09 GMT
Given that our two-party system makes our only VIABLE options Democrat or Republican, you can put a D after my name.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 27, 2018 16:45:40 GMT
Given that our two-party system makes our only VIABLE options Democrat or Republican, you can put a D after my name. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 27, 2018 20:55:12 GMT
It would be so easy to turn open primaries into a real first round eliminatory election and then have the top two candidates duke it out in the second round, like we do in so many countries. But I guess that would be un-American.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 27, 2018 21:31:41 GMT
The “good” candidates from Green and Independent parties would split the vote with Democrats, and we’d STILL end up with Republicans running! This scenario could be great for getting rid of a bad democratic candidate, though.
I prefer automatic run-off ballotting - if your first choice isn’t in the top 2, your 2nd choice candidate gets your vote. So you can vote your conscience AND know that you aren’t inadvertently giving the worst candidate an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 27, 2018 22:08:29 GMT
The “good” candidates from Green and Independent parties would split the vote with Democrats, and we’d STILL end up with Republicans running! This scenario could be great for getting rid of a bad democratic candidate, though. That is indeed a danger, but it helps people to finally understand the importance of coalitions and the need to have just one candidate sometimes representing several currents. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Various districts in France regularly have the despair of having to choose between two right wing candidates and nobody else in the second round. It happens on the left, too, but not as often for some reason.
A certain amount of unpleasant wheeling and dealing is often required. For example, for the Greens to enter into an alliance to which they can bring, say, 5% of the overall vote, just enough to win, they tend to demand to head the list for perhaps 10% of the winnable seats. So does the other party refuse and lose with integrity or dilute their ideals and win with the Greens? Multiparty politics can actually be quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 27, 2018 22:26:57 GMT
Although with no “parliament” and representatives elected by district, we have nothing to promise Greens or anyone else. No coalition government. Even a presidential candidate choosing a third party for his VP is no guarantee of anything other than an attempt to buy more votes.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 28, 2018 4:35:02 GMT
Clearly, the mentality is different.
For example, California has 53 congressional districts. 39 districts are held by Democrats and 14 by Republicans. The Democrats could choose not to present a candidate in, say, 10 districts if there were a viable 'friendly' party like the Greens or whatever. The negotiation in a case like this is deciding who gets what -- since some of the candidates have to run in districts which they will almost certainly lose. In terms of campaign posters, the logos of both parties are presented. 'Jane Smith presented by the Green Party, supported by the Democrats.'
Obviously this cannot work in a place like Montana for national office, but there is nothing stopping a state legislature from doing it.
It just doesn't fit the American mindset, though.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 28, 2018 4:43:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 28, 2018 13:22:10 GMT
Each congressional district within a state is its own little universe. The statewide party doesn’t have the kind of power - or restraint - you describe.
But, there is a way. Combine 4 districts and elect 4 representatives from the entire slate of candidates of all parties. Everyone votes for 4 and the top 4 get the seats.
There’s a name for this, but I’ve forgotten it.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 28, 2018 13:33:23 GMT
BTW, the first woman EVER elected to the House of Representatives got her seat this way.
When the 1910 census granted MT a new 2nd seat in Congress, there wasn’t time to draw up a map for two districts, so all 4 candidates from both parties were on the ballot with the top two getting the seats.
Jeannette Rankin, a progressive Republican from Montana (born just down the road from where I live, in a house that stood till 2014) got the 2nd most votes and went to Congress in 1917, 3 1/2 years before the rest of America granted women the right to vote. Other states (8?) preceded MT in women’s suffrage, but national suffrage was enacted in 1920.
Jeannette’s first vote, BTW, was AGAINST the US entering WWI.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 28, 2018 13:35:38 GMT
That's the proportional system. The new French government is planning major changes for that. Both the national assembly and the senate are going to have 30% of their seats eliminated, and somewhere between 10 and 25% of the new seats will elected on a proportional basis so that the small parties finally get representation (I'd say it won't be more than 10% because the traditional parties are screaming too loud.). It will also become impossible to serve more than 3 terms (that's 15 years for the national assembly or 18 years for the Senate). Try and imagine such a reform in the United States!
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 28, 2018 15:16:01 GMT
The number of US Representatives has remained at 435 since 1911, though the population has increased between 3 and four-fold. After each decade’s census, congressional seats are shifted around to represent demographic shift since the last census.
This is not a nonpartisan process, however, so the party in power in a state that gains or loses a seat in the H of R has the ability - and the motivation - to gerrymander the new districts to favor candidates from their own party and disadvantage the other party.
Over time, the redistribution of representatives from declining-population states to growing states - without changing the total number of reps from 435 - has resulted in some serious inequities. Montana for example, has ONE rep serving over a million people (and an area larger than Germany and close in size to Zimbabwe), whereas the smallest state, Rhode Island, has TWO seats in Congress, though it’s smaller in area than the Cape Verde Islands or Trinidad and Tobago. Yes they have more people in RI than in MT, but not TWICE as many. In fact, the populations of the two states are close to the same.
Doing more checking of more recent numbers, since 2016, when RI had about 14,000 more people than MT, Montana is growing faster and current estimates put MT UP about 600 people over RI. So if demographic trends continue till the 2020 census, MT should regain its 2nd seat in Congress and RI should drop to one.
In theory. Other states could have bigger population increases that could negate our gain, sending RI ‘s lost seat elsewhere. And MT is currently fairly red (GOP), though our current governor is a moderate Democrat, so redistributing could be gerrymandered to favor Republicans in both districts.
Our system sucks! But the inequity in seats could be improved by changing the NUMBER of seats from 435 to a number that would allow each district to have approximately the same number of people in it.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 28, 2018 15:46:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 28, 2018 15:50:34 GMT
I believe it makes perfect sense to reduce the 577 seats in France (the plan is for 404) and increase the 435 seats in the United States.
|
|