All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[4saken1]

My issue with ranked choice voting is that it assumes that everyone goes in with a clearly defined ranking of candidates already in mind and that they will never want to change their list as votes are counted and candidates eliminated, which might be true if all voters were perfectly logical but is a bit of a stretch in practice. If there are a lot of candidates, trying to rank them all can be quite confusing, so many people will just put their less favored candidates in an essentially arbitrary order, which could be pivotal later on, or just leave them off the ballot, which risks throwing away your vote. An actual runoff election helps clear away a lot of noise and gives voters a chance to make a definitive choice, rather than having to consider all possible scenarios where their vote might be decisive, with the added advantage that people can get in their protest votes in the first round and still make a meaningful choice in the second.

Another thing I'd be in favor of is outlawing partisan primary elections entirely, and forcing all candidates to enter a jungle primary followed by a runoff if nobody gets a majority in the first round, just like in the Mississippi special election. Though I suppose that kind of system will just end up with some kind of informal primary that anoints the leading contenders, with cash flowing to those campaigns and funds cut off from marginal contenders and potential spoilers. Blah.

Yeah, I think Runoff Elections are better than the current system. Problem is, Third Party candidates who can't compete with the big two feel disenfranchised.

Another alternate system that I would like to see in favor of what we currently have is Proportional Representation. If the Green Party miraculously gets 5% of the vote, then they should get 5% of the political positions. I just don't know how this could be implemented, though.......

[numberthirty]

Logic would dictate that, but countries that do this still have a significantly higher voter turnout than we do.

Again, the idea that a significantly higher turnout is automatically "Good" is something that I think folks should seriously consider when you are talking about the American electorate.

While I have zero use for ninety-nine percent of Republicans and very little use for most Democrats, they are still a million times better than a larger turnout possibly creating a situation where "Proud Boy"/"Spencer" type politicians have any more of a chance than they already do.

[InformationGeek]

Because he's an ass, the Keebler Elf is gonna do one last thing out of spite.

Breaking News: In a last-minute act, Jeff Sessions drastically limited the Justice Dept.’s ability to initiate overhauls at police departments accused of abuse

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, I think Runoff Elections are better than the current system. Problem is, Third Party candidates who can't compete with the big two feel disenfranchised.

Another alternate system that I would like to see in favor of what we currently have is Proportional Representation. If the Green Party miraculously gets 5% of the vote, then they should get 5% of the political positions. I just don't know how this could be implemented, though.......

An issue with proportional representation is that it removes the ability of voters to pick a candidate. Do we want that tradeoff?

He is the kind of new blood the Dems need, but I'm not sure he should go for Pres so soon after the loss to Cruz. If no one else that has been bandied about steps up and he decides to run I'd vote for him if he became the candidate, but he needs a big national win under his belt to properly excite the voting public beyond just the base IMO.

What about the members of Congress elected under his coattails?

The bigger issue is one of inexperience. Is three terms in Congress as a backbencher in the minority party enough to qualify someone as a legitimate contender for President?

Arizona Republicans are, I s*** you not suing four Democratic counties to STOP COUNTING mail-in ballots. Like, "oh, since McSally is ahead by about 15K, we can ignore that last oh... 400K of ballots." Similarly, indicted NY Chris Collins is arguing that they should stop counting ballots in his district. Democracy, the GOP way. "It only counts when we win."

Also, WA-8 just got called for the Democrat there, Kim Schrier. That's another flip. Currently, it's looking like Democrats will have between 228-230 seats, after recounts (with 218 needed for the majority). It's going to be hard for the GOP to hang onto Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins' seats during their trials for criminal activity, as well.

Historically, special elections to replace candidates forced out by criminal convictions go badly for that party.

There is a specific argument in Arizona that the law is vague on how to handle certain types of mail-in ballots, with different regions handling issues of signature verification in different ways. Apparently, two counties allow voters to help clear up signature problems up to five days after the election, which means more votes will be counted there than elsewhere in the state.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...e-race-n933866

A counterpoint would be that conservative regions could have adopted the same policy to ensure that more votes will be counted from their area.

[Dalak]

What about the members of Congress elected under his coattails?

I don't think they should run for President either.

The bigger issue is one of inexperience. Is three terms in Congress as a backbencher in the minority party enough to qualify someone as a legitimate contender for President?

After electing and then bending over backwards for Trump so often, NO ONE on the Right gets to question political experience anymore. Besides, I thought they liked people not tied down by washington politics

[Mister Mets]

Agreed 100%. Admittedly it was a gamble if the leak came from Senator Feinstein's staff. We still don't know for sure who leaked Dr. Ford's letter that was forwarded by her congresswoman to Diane Fienstien. I believe her when she says she didn't inform any reporters. It could have been someone who knew Dr. Ford since she had told friends about this incident as far back as 2012. Only the reporter knows and he's not revealing his sources.

I think it was just as much of a hot potato for both parties and IMO the GOP came out for the worse...and the Trumpists.

There is also the possibility the leak came from the staff of thecongresswoman Ford sought out. They also had access to the information.

You know that is not the answer.

I find it difficult to rule out incompetence with the Trump administration.

It seemed possible that they saw a video on Infowars, and posted it without checking if it was doctored.

Buzzfeed has come up with a different explanation for discrepancies. It could just be the result of a change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-sarah-sanders

I hope it doesn't go that way too since it means there was a total breakdown of the Constitution and either repeal or disregard of the 22nd amendment some time between now and 2024.

It was a typo on my end.

I'm pretty sure the worst-case scenario is Trump as a two-termer.

Because they want another MAGAbomber with better bombs to get angry and self-righteous enough to CNN. It's how stochastic terror works.

I'm curious how you guys think stochastic terrorism is planned.

Do you believe there are top-ranking Republican officials who actually discuss the intended effects (IE- talk with one another about strategies on what kind of comments trigger "lone wolves" to commit acts of violence)? Or do decision-makers independently come to the conclusion about how stochastic terrorism works, and do the things that make it more dangerous?

Getting rid of gerrymandering would help a lot at fixing the voting process. But there's one thing that annoys me. And that's people calling racism "Trumpism". Cause he didn't create racism, and sexism. "Trumpism" is going to be here long after Trump leaves office. Especially as minorities gain a little bit more power and influence inch by inch. We're going to be fighting this battle for awhile.

There are three issues with the emphasis on gerrymandering.

1- Gerrymandering only applies to areas where legislative districts are determined by population. It won't affect the Senate, any statewide offices, or any offices based on existing county lines (IE- District Attorney, At-large city councilman, County Treasurer.) The effect on presidential elections is negligible (two states reward points in the electoral college to winners of congressional districts.)

2- The definition has gotten vague. Initially, it applied to situations in which political parties determined the boundaries of districts for partisan advantage. Now it's applied to situations in which a party benefits due to existing standards (as occurs with Republicans when district boundaries are determined by compactness, or organizing communities of interest- ostensibly nonpartisan goals.)

3- The solutions are also complicated, since it isn't obvious who should be trusted to come up with the new districts, and what standards they should sue.

I don't think they should run for President either.



After electing and then bending over backwards for Trump so often, NO ONE on the Right gets to question political experience anymore. Besides, I thought they liked people not tied down by washington politics

In the primary, O'Rourke would likely run against people who have more experience and accomplishments.

That said, it will technically be hard for anyone to be more experienced than the incumbent President.

I can't speak for the rest of the right. At this point, O'Rourke's probably on my list of Democrats I'd support over Trump, along with polling frontrunner Joe Biden, and a few more obscure candidates (New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, Montana Governor Steve Bullock.)

[PwrdOn]

Yeah, I think Runoff Elections are better than the current system. Problem is, Third Party candidates who can't compete with the big two feel disenfranchised.

Another alternate system that I would like to see in favor of what we currently have is Proportional Representation. If the Green Party miraculously gets 5% of the vote, then they should get 5% of the political positions. I just don't know how this could be implemented, though.......

Proportional representation is likely never going to happen in America since people are too attached to local representatives and would probably shun the idea of just voting for a party list drawn up by insiders rather than actual people. Also, I'm not really sure it'd be much of an improvement, since you would just have swing parties hold disproportionate power rather than individual representatives. I mean, if Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin just decided to form their own party they could pretty much hold the entire government hostage unless the rest of the Senate agreed to shower their states with pork, and being that moderates of this stripe generally are devoid of all principle other than adherence to civility and protocol they definitely wouldn't hesitate to do just that.

[Tendrin]

Rick Scott is launching lawsuits to stop the counting ov votes?

Why does this sound familiar?

[numberthirty]

Unless I am spacing out Karen Handel just got the Denise Willis.

Someone has totally already mentioned this, haven't they?

[Tendrin]

Unless I am spacing out Karen Handel just got the Denise Willis.

Someone has totally already mentioned this, haven't they?

Yep. Handel's gone. Osoff making it close paved the way for it to happen. Hopefully, the same will be true in Texas. There's a very long list of ugly GOPers that lost in Texas even if we didn't take out Cruz.

[Gray Lensman]

Rick Scott is launching lawsuits to stop the counting ov votes?

Why does this sound familiar?

This is the second biggest reason why I left the Republican party and one that will need to stop before I can consider going back. They have become the anti democracy party, and I refuse to be counted among that.

The number one reason Is Benedict Donald, but even if he is gone before the tern is up other issues remain. Abandoning democracy, the free market, and embracing racism mainly.

[Kevinroc]

Unless I am spacing out Karen Handel just got the Denise Willis.

Someone has totally already mentioned this, haven't they?

Yup. She lost to Lucy McBath, the mother of Jordan Davis. (For those who may have forgotten, Jordan Davis was the young black teenager who was shot to death at a gas station in Florida "over loud music.")

McBath took over Georgia 6th, which used to seat former prominent Republican scumbags such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Price.

[JCAll]

An issue with proportional representation is that it removes the ability of voters to pick a candidate. Do we want that tradeoff?

No that wouldn't be acceptable for me. We wouldn't have to have to use a vanilla system though, everything that can be made can be tailored to be more efficient. To twist a phrase: Rules aren't meant to be broken, rules are meant to be patched.
Maybe something like expanding the role of primaries to pick the candidate lists before the election to decide how the seats are distributed.

[worstblogever]

"But it's not a Blue Wave..."

Look, seeing Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill,, Bredesen, and Beto lose was admittedly not encouraging. Tester held on in a red state. Nelson may win Florida when all is said and done, though, and Sinema still flipped a seat blue in Arizona while Rosen did the same in Nevada. When all is said and done, with the worst Senate map for an election year in terms of defense, Democrats may lose between one and three seats, tops. It's likely going to be one, but far from anything that would be a mandate.

Meanwhile, the House saw Democrats flip the most seats in any election since after Watergate in '74. While up against the most gerrymandered map in American history. They're looking at a 30-35 seat pickup. And they elected more women, more people of color, and more LGBTQ candidates than have ever been in office.

That's a Blue Wave, make no mistake. In 2020, the GOP could lose the Senate, when they have to play defense in 21 states, versus only 12 for Democrats. While the Democratic seats are all in safe blue states, Republicans will have to play defense in:

• Maine- Susan Collins: She can't pretend to be moderate anymore, not after the Kavanaugh vote.
• Georgia- David Perdue: Not popular, and the state is trending bluer. It's also a presidential year, with an unpopular administration.
• Arizona- Jon Kyl: He is supposed to be a placeholder for the rest of McCain's term. There weren't any popular Republicans ready to take Jeff Flake's place... if the right Democratic candidate is on the ballot...
• Colorado- Cory Gardner- Colorado is trending bluer all the time and just elected the first openly gay Governor in American history. Gardner might be toast.
• Iowa- Joni Ernst- She has not risen to beloved levels by any stretch, and Iowa just voted for a Democrat in every one of its House districts, save for Steve King's.
• North Carolina- Thom Tillis- Trending bluer. Thom Tillis is not beloved, and didn't win office by a big margin in 2014 with poor Democratic turnout.
• South Carolina- Lindsey Graham- SC has been a pretty solid red state, but Sen. Graham's psychotic behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings and becoming Donald Trump's b**** could bite him on the ass.
• Kansas- Pat Roberts- expected to retire, as he's well into his 80s. Whoever runs in his place is seeing a state reject the GOP's leadership after repeated failures through the Brownback era, and are getting tired of extremists (see Kobach, Kris).
• Kentucky- Mitch McConnell- The most unpopular Senator, by far. He's been in office for almost 40 years, and it might be the year his state realizes Mitch broke American politics.

Realistically, the GOP could flip perhaps one of the Democratic seats up for election. But they'll have to win in at least 4 of the above states to hold onto the Senate. To say nothing of 2022, where they again will have to defend far more seats than Democrats, and could see a wave of retirements due to old age when folks like Chuck Grassley and Johnny Isakson are up.

[Tendrin]

And let's not forget the first native American and two Muslims elected to Congress.