U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:38 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:I'm obviously not withdrawing my vote from Democrats
*facepalm*
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:36 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm obviously not withdrawing my vote from Democrats
*facepalm*

So it's better to give your vote to a party that's actively hostile to your interests, than to one that you feel doesn't devote enough effort to your interests?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:06 am UTC

Well that's the problem with two party states.

Which is why imho those shouldn't be counted amongst the real democracies.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:21 am UTC

Democratic Party: We hope that DOMA will just go away without us having to do anything, because if we tried and failed to get 60 votes in the Senate for a repeal it would hurt us without accomplishing anything, and a stiff breeze would drop us.

Republican Party: Oh me yarm WHAT IF DOMA GOES AWAY!?!? HOW DARE THAT HIPPIE NAZI SOCIALIST STOP SENDING HIS LAWYERS TO MAKE BULLSHIT LEGAL ARGUMENTS!?!?

All other Parties: If we work really hard for about twenty years, there's a chance that someone might care what we think about gay rights!

So, as someone who's fairly solidly left, there are two reasons why I tend to support Democrats. One is the standard, lesser-of-two-evils stuff. The other is because netcrusher's analysis is pretty fucking apt, and I really don't see how long it can hold together under these conditions. I think that the structure of American politics would massively shift-- and for the better-- if the Republican Party fractured, and I think that there's a chance that it could actually happen so long as Republicans are kept out of power for a few more cycles.
Image

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:57 am UTC

IcedT wrote:So it's better to give your vote to a party that's actively hostile to your interests, than to one that you feel doesn't devote enough effort to your interests?

Sure? If you refuse to vote against someone just because they are nominally better then the opposition on a few key interests, they'll never have any reason to increase their support of your causes.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:11 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
IcedT wrote:So it's better to give your vote to a party that's actively hostile to your interests, than to one that you feel doesn't devote enough effort to your interests?

Sure? If you refuse to vote against someone just because they are nominally better then the opposition on a few key interests, they'll never have any reason to increase their support of your causes.
There's very few issues that a party is worried about it's base on. A vast majority of the gay bloc are also liberals anyway. (Why do people, including, and maybe especially, gay people, assume that gay voters only vote based on that? I know for a fact I'd instantly vote for a democrat that opposes gay marriage and supports single payer health care over the opposite democrat). The Democratic party doesn't have to worry about losing gay voters. They worry some about support and enthusiasm, but that's not as important as votes. The way to victory for either party is in the middle. (Kind of. The Republican base is incredibly energetic if you appeal to them, and can bring votes simply with their campaign presence. The Democrats have a mythical non-voting bloc that would support them almost 100% if they did vote, but going more liberal doesn't seem to attract them. Gay rights is also a very bad way to appeal to these non-voters.)

No matter how tepid the support of the gay lobby is for Democrats, they aren't worried about losing gay voters, and even if they were, there are still more votes in the middle. Especially if you can turn some moderate Republicans.

The real place to win the fight for the party is in the primary. Look at how conservative Republicans have won the fight over on the other side of the aisle. It's by driving moderate Republican politicians out. Especially on the state level, where turnout is lower, and that is less likely to turn against them in the general.

The absolute best way to help gay rights right now is to support primary challenges against Democrats in state legislatures who have opposed equality, and then oppose the inevitable voter initiatives banning gay marriage.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:21 am UTC

.... You're a bit late to the party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sames ... in_USA.svg). Same-sex marriage is already banned via statute or constitutional amendment in most states that don't allow it.

Why would a gay person prioritize another pet cause at the expense of one that is the key to winning the war against heterosexism? Gee, I don't know, maybe because being barred from marriage costs gay people a shitload of money

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/bank-of-ame ... #more-5476

Or maybe because being barred to one of the most popular rites of passage in current culture perpetuates an underclass status that feeds atmospheres in which gay people are tormented and killed.


Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm obviously not withdrawing my vote from Democrats
*facepalm*



Yeah, stay at home, that will show them Democrats! Oh, wait, a vote less for a Democrat always favors a Republican, which is a horrendous outcome unless it's Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida.

Even those "reasonable" Mitt Romney-loving New Hampshire Republicans are pushing for a marriage equality repeal to downgrade it to civil unions. Fuck Republicans and they will feel the scorn of the gay community for generations. Just like they've fucked it up with African Americans and now Hispanics.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:38 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:The absolute best way to help gay rights right now is to support primary challenges against Democrats in state legislatures who have opposed equality, and then oppose the inevitable voter initiatives banning gay marriage.

And be careful with those primaries. And by careful I mean pragmatic - don't try to primary people who are a lock for the job with people for whom their Republican challenger could be a serious contender. A disinterested person who will vote with your interests because their party wants them to is better than an enemy.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:51 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Well that's the problem with two party states.

Which is why imho those shouldn't be counted amongst the real democracies.


Like you really have a choice in Britain's 3-party system. Think Labour fucked up again? But don't want the Tories? You could try the Liberal Democrats, but that's just a vote for the same crap as Labour.

The truth is, the US has maybe 6 different major political parties; what most other countries call a "coalition" the US calls a "party". The Republicans have quasi-Libertarians, Christian-Conservatives, and a few moderate factions. The Democrats have pseudo-Socialists, "Blue Dog Democrats", what others call a 'Green' party, and quite a few other, smaller factions. Each faction fights with the others in their coalition to make sure their candidate wins the nomination, then the quarreling parties unite to push the chosen representative to the actual position in power. In exchange, s/he throws a bone to the other factions within his/her coalition. The smaller factions have been known to move to the other coalition; Christian-Conservatives, prior to the 60s, were part of the Democrats.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:37 am UTC

I agree, even if we had many parties the coalitions would mostly be along the same lines. So a more strongly pro-gay rights party might emerge, but it would still be in a weak position when it comes time to build a coalition. But the Democrats are a much safer bet than the Republicans because, as much as the Democratic base is often indifferent to these issues, a big chunk of the Republican base is very openly hostile to them. I think I read that something like 30% of registered Republicans are self-professed evangelicals, but I'm having trouble confirming those numbers. Anyway, the anti-gay crowd is pretty indispensable for the Republican party, and if gays are having trouble with the Democrats that just goes to show how hopeless it would be to try and change the GOP from the inside.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:39 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
IcedT wrote:So it's better to give your vote to a party that's actively hostile to your interests, than to one that you feel doesn't devote enough effort to your interests?

Sure? If you refuse to vote against someone just because they are nominally better then the opposition on a few key interests, they'll never have any reason to increase their support of your causes.

Instead, they'll have reason to go even more strongly against your interests, because that's what won your vote. The sad fact is that in the US (and possibly many / most other representative democracies), voting for the lesser evil (specifically, one that is capable of winning) is nearly always in your best interests. Going down anecdote lane- I live in NH, and in 2000 my dad and one of my sisters voted for Nader. They despised (and still do), Bush. If around a third of the 22,000 people that voted for Nader in NH had picked Gore instead (and I suspect that effectively every Nader voter would have preferred Gore to Bush), Gore would have won. Even as a kid I was able to realize before hand that they were voting foolishly- look at the results: the person they wanted to lose most, ended up winning.

Speaking specifically to gay rights and democrats vs. republicans, in one corner you have a group that isn't really going to fight for it much, if at all, but isn't (on average) going to oppose it. In the other corner, you have a group that frequently refers to the gays seeking rights as subhuman, sinners, having an agenda (specifically, the "bad" kind of agenda), and just all around calling them "bad people". I don't see how somebody can argue that anyone should vote for (most) republicans, if gay rights is their primary issue. Even in the case of democrats that won't fight for it in the least, most in executive power seem inclined to pass it into law if it ends up on their desk. Over here, NH passed a law allowing same sex-marriage, our governor, John Lynch, stated he was personally opposed to it, but signed it (with some protection for churches thrown in) into law anyway. I can't imagine Obama getting any significant support out of the base ever again if a same-sex marriage bill was somehow passed by congress, and he vetoed it. He won't fight to have that happen, but the political math works out such that it'd be far more electorally foolish for him to veto than to pass.

CorruptUser wrote:The smaller factions have been known to move to the other coalition; Christian-Conservatives, prior to the 60s, were part of the Democrats.

That's more to do with a regional trend than anything else. After the civil war the south was pretty bitter with republicans, as they were the party to push the war and abolition and everything else. So they became staunch democrats. Then when the civil rights act was passed by democrats, they became bitter with them and jumped ship. I'm not really sure you can say anything significant about either party due to those switches. Individual states switch the party they tend to vote for all the time too; California was, for a time, a reliable republican state. Now the only reason they campaign there at all is to get donations out of all the rich people that live there.

Edit: Had a bad apostrophe in there.
Last edited by Ghostbear on Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:42 am UTC

IcedT wrote:So it's better to give your vote to a party that's actively hostile to your interests, than to one that you feel doesn't devote enough effort to your interests?
There are other options besides voting Republican or Democrat. The prime two are not voting or voting for a third party that is more pro-gay.

omgryebread wrote:A vast majority of the gay bloc are also liberals anyway. (Why do people, including, and maybe especially, gay people, assume that gay voters only vote based on that?
It's not clear that it's actually the case that the gay bloc is all that more liberal on issues other than gay rights. I suspect there are selection effects- gay liberals are more likely to advertise that they're gay than gay conservatives.

But, gays tend to be more urban, less religious, and have less children than Americans as a whole, which are correlated with being liberal. (There are a couple of trends the other way- I'm pretty sure gays have higher incomes, which is correlated with being conservative.)

Lucrece wrote:Yeah, stay at home, that will show them Democrats!
Exactly.

Look, either have the spine to turn your back on the Democrats when they turn their back on you, or don't complain about them taking you for granted.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The sad fact is that in the US (and possibly many / most other representative democracies), voting for the lesser evil (specifically, one that is capable of winning) is nearly always in your best interests. Going down anecdote lane- I live in NH, and in 2000 my dad and one of my sister's voted for Nader. They despised (and still do), Bush. If around a third of the 22,000 people that voted for Nader in NH had picked Gore instead (and I suspect that effectively every Nader voter would have preferred Gore to Bush), Gore would have won. Even as a kid I was able to realize before hand that they were voting foolishly- look at the results: the person they wanted to lose most, ended up winning.

This is (one of the many reasons) why First Past the Post (vote for one person, candidate with most votes wins) is a horrible voting system. The best usable voting system I know of is Approval Voting (vote for as many people as you approve of, candidate with highest approval wins). Approval Voting never has the “spoiler effect” where a third party “steals votes” from an otherwise victorious candidate, whereas both FPTP and Instant Runoff Voting have that issue.

Approval Voting makes it so each candidate is treated individually. That means every voter either votes for, or by abstention votes against, each candidate. The candidate that gets the greatest number of affirmative votes is the winner.

The process of filling out an Approval Voting ballot is identical to current voting procedure, except the voter is permitted to mark multiple checkboxes. Tallying results is also identical, meaning the number of votes for each candidate is totaled, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

The Approval Voting method would also work well for designing budgets and other laws in congress. The process of deciding how a law should be worded could be carried out in part by different people writing different, competing versions, and those versions could be put to an Approval Vote in the legislature. Then, when the most-approved version is finalized, the chambers of congress could have their constitutionally required yea-or-nay votes on the piece of legislation. Ideally this would be done on individual sections of the law, so things like “pizza is a vegetable” would go up against versions of the same law without that classification.
wee free kings

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:00 am UTC

If there is a party that you roughly agree with, but you want them to change on some specific point, then your best effort is always to join the party and make some noise on the inside. Join a "gays in your local party" block, and help to make that a block an effective aid in campaigns, in fund raising, in internal party politics.

If you (and clearly identifiable people who agree with you) are active supporters, then you can play the "I'll become less active if you do X and more if you do ~X" card. That's far more powerful than the "I won't vote for you" card. Unlike voting, it's visible. It can be organized and coordinated. It amplifies you to more value to the party than a mere voter. And it's far more credible that you'll stop active support for the lesser evil than that you won't vote for them.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:41 pm UTC

Range voting is directly superior to approval voting, as it allows voters to be more expressive but has the same general structure.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:47 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Range voting

Were they afraid that Geocities would kick them out if they made their site look better?

EDIT: more serious, I don't think voting systems are going to make much of a difference here. The situation is that gay rights alone will not give you enough votes to hold power and make changes. So you need it to be part of coalitions. That's true in two-party systems, but just as much in other systems.

You get influence in such coalitions if you can show a base of support that is willing to leave the coalition if your demands aren't met. Range voting might make that base somewhat clearer, but it's not that different than polling in this respect.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:00 pm UTC

Wow, I didn't know that modern browsers still supported the blink tag. It almost distracted me from the argument that we could have a voting system as unabusable as the one that Olympic gymnastic judges use.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jules.LT » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:03 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Range voting is directly superior to approval voting, as it allows voters to be more expressive but has the same general structure.

That's if you take expressiveness as the sole criterion.
Here's the thread on alternate voting systems, for those who are interested in discussing that.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:19 pm UTC

My wife and I were discussing things during our recent Thanksgiving roadtrip. She told me about a class in college where her professor said "Democracy is not the ballot box, it's about building consensus." When you have a party that isn't interested in governance, you're not going to have consensus. We'd like to think that changing the voting method would suddenly fix our Democracy but it won't. It might help, but if you've got representatives that run misleading campaigns (Scott Walker springs to mind) or just a group of unsavory candidates (see current batch of GOP presidential hopefuls), you're not going to get a good government.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:01 pm UTC

41.6% of eligible voters participated in the 2010 general election. If not showing up to the polls sends a message, then we are as of yet still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of it sinking in.
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:24 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Were they afraid that Geocities would kick them out if they made their site look better?
I think the site is mostly dead, actually, but it's useful for explaining the concept.

jules.LT wrote:That's if you take expressiveness as the sole criterion.
It's the only difference between those two systems.

Garm wrote:We'd like to think that changing the voting method would suddenly fix our Democracy but it won't. It might help, but if you've got representatives that run misleading campaigns (Scott Walker springs to mind) or just a group of unsavory candidates (see current batch of GOP presidential hopefuls), you're not going to get a good government.
Candidates are endogenous to the voting system, not exogenous. Change the voting system and you change how consensus is formed, and thus which candidates survive to electoral prominence.

EsotericWombat wrote:41.6% of eligible voters participated in the 2010 general election. If not showing up to the polls sends a message, then we are as of yet still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of it sinking in.
You don't think strategists watch turnout breakdowns like hawks?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:41 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Garm wrote:We'd like to think that changing the voting method would suddenly fix our Democracy but it won't. It might help, but if you've got representatives that run misleading campaigns (Scott Walker springs to mind) or just a group of unsavory candidates (see current batch of GOP presidential hopefuls), you're not going to get a good government.
Candidates are endogenous to the voting system, not exogenous. Change the voting system and you change how consensus is formed, and thus which candidates survive to electoral prominence.


That's a fair point. As I hedged, I think changing the voting system would be a good start but it's not a fix-all solution (there isn't one as far as I'm concerned). I think that a different voting system would encourage third-party candidates, something this country desperately needs. There's plenty of variation in opinion within the two parties (Elizabeth Warren is a bona fide progressive, Ben Nelson is a conservative cocksucker, both are in the Democratic party) and I think a different voting system would allow those opinions to be better represented. Problem is that would require a more educated electorate and (I think anyway) a higher turnout.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:05 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Yeah, stay at home, that will show them Democrats!
Exactly.

Look, either have the spine to turn your back on the Democrats when they turn their back on you, or don't complain about them taking you for granted.


And substitute the complaint of being ignored over the complaint that a Republican got elected and now my people are getting massacred in legislation. No, I think I will stick to complaining about Democrat neglect and denying campaign finance over getting a damaging Republican elected to make a point.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:26 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Garm wrote:We'd like to think that changing the voting method would suddenly fix our Democracy but it won't. It might help, but if you've got representatives that run misleading campaigns (Scott Walker springs to mind) or just a group of unsavory candidates (see current batch of GOP presidential hopefuls), you're not going to get a good government.
Candidates are endogenous to the voting system, not exogenous. Change the voting system and you change how consensus is formed, and thus which candidates survive to electoral prominence.

There's surely some endogenity, but it shouldn't be oversold. There are many factors involved, and the voting system is just part of it. Look at the differences between the British and American lower houses. The voting principles are highly similar (definitely compared to something like range voting), and the resulting large scale dynamic is indeed the same, a right and a left party that get majorities in turn. But the Brits have many other parties, a historic Whig/labour switch, a far stricter party voting discipline, and overall a very different type of candidate.

The US electoral system should in principle allow a Dixiecratic party or other regionalists in the house of representatives, or even some Greens or other parties without a strict localized appeal. That those aren't around has as much to do with the specific organizational principles and traditions of American political parties as with the electoral system.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:38 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:my people are getting massacred in legislation.
Sarah Palin signs bill allowing gays to be hunted from helicopters?

Zamfir wrote:But the Brits have many other parties, ... a far stricter party voting discipline
I suspect that those two are heavily related. Like CorruptUser points out, what you call a coalition and what you call a party is fairly arbitrary.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Xeio » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:45 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:my people are getting massacred in legislation.
Sarah Palin signs bill allowing gays to be hunted from helicopters?
Are you being purposefully obtuse for some reason?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

He's nitpicking my hyperbole. That's okay, I still stand by it. Whenever Republicans get their way, gay people are deprived of basic rights, are on open season for job, housing, and services discrimination; and when campaign seasons comes, 5% of the population becomes the boogeyman and we become according to the FBI hate crimes reports the most physically assailed and murdered minority. Republicans have politically profited from stoking anti-gay animus for decades.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:49 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:my people are getting massacred in legislation.
Sarah Palin signs bill allowing gays to be hunted from helicopters?

Zamfir wrote:But the Brits have many other parties, ... a far stricter party voting discipline
I suspect that those two are heavily related. Like CorruptUser points out, what you call a coalition and what you call a party is fairly arbitrary.

I wouldn´t say that what you call a party is arbitrary. Various wings of a single party have a social and organizational coherence that is clearly different from multiple separate parties. It´s true of course that two similar political coalitions might be a single party in one place or time, and a group of parties at another moment. But once you have a formalized a coalition into a party (or not), that creates a dynamic of it´s own. Like how the US clearly does not work the same as 50 independent countries would, even though it covers the same land and people and their conflicts and common interests.

Parties themselves are also institutions, just as much as the specific rules of the elections. And some parties might well be stronger and more durable institutions than the rules, or in the US case even than the political coalitions they once represented.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:49 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:41.6% of eligible voters participated in the 2010 general election. If not showing up to the polls sends a message, then we are as of yet still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of it sinking in.
You don't think strategists watch turnout breakdowns like hawks?

Republican strategists throw parties. Then work on getting legislation passed to further voter suppression.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:41.6% of eligible voters participated in the 2010 general election. If not showing up to the polls sends a message, then we are as of yet still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of it sinking in.
You don't think strategists watch turnout breakdowns like hawks?

Republican strategists throw parties. Then work on getting legislation passed to further voter suppression.


Citation needed.

I don't see Republicans actively preventing people from voting any more than the Democrats. So, evidence please.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:15 pm UTC

There've been numerous states enacting similar bits of legislation to require additional ID when voting, and/or to make registering more difficult for individuals or those who run registration drives.

Particularly of note is that one state's Republicans decided an NRA membership card is sufficient identification for voting, but a college ID is not.

I have no citations because I am procrastinating enough already, and there are so many crazy bills in so many states that I don't retain too many details on them.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:27 pm UTC

My college IDs do not indicate whether or not I'm a citizen; does the NRA ID?

Yeah, I don't think a private organization's ID should count at all; public issued only, such as driver's license, passport, SS card, etc. You kind of have to have those things just to be employed, so it's kind of expected you have some kind of identification. There does have to be some accountability when it comes to 'registration drives' to prevent non-citizens from registering, among other things. Yes, it does look suspicious, but it is not as clear-cut as 'electioneering is the only explanation'.

I'd be more worried about voting booths "independently" closing early or difficult to access in counties with large opposition.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:31 pm UTC

The voter fraud myth is used by Republicans to keep voter turnout low and keep minorities away from the polls.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

or another from the brennan center:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

There's even fraud surrounding the data about fraud:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/election-panel-delays-edits.html

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal panel charged with conducting elections research, misrepresented the findings of a bipartisan team of experts on the highly politicized topic of voter fraud. In a report contracted by the EAC, the experts found little evidence of voter fraud across the nation;1 the EAC replaced these findings with language injecting uncertainty into the pervasiveness of fraud and downplaying the findings on voter intimidation.2 As one author states, "the conclusions that we found in our research and included in our report were revised by the EAC, without explanation or discussion with me, my co-author, or the general public."3

The EAC reduced the draft to half of its length and only released a final version after receiving a petition with 13,000 signatories, sponsored by the People for the American Way.4 Among the substantive changes, the draft report's conclusion that "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,"5 was altered by the EAC to read "there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud."6 The EAC replaced the section of the draft stating "there is evidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression … a number of people also raise the problem of poll workers engaging in harassment of minority voters,"7 with this language: "intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation."8
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:55 pm UTC

The law isn't the only way Republicans do vote suppression. As one might expect, they're also into private-sector methods.

Remember that entire made-up ACORN scandal? The entire reason O'Keefe chose ACORN as a target for his massive fraud was to do damage to an organization that registered poor people to vote. (I mean, he could also have been mad at them for the career counselling they offered to poor people, but as a member of the party that says that poor people just need to get a job that seems unlikely)

And then there's the Kochs and their habit of sending mailers giving people faulty information about voting
Image

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:01 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My college IDs do not indicate whether or not I'm a citizen; does the NRA ID?

No. That one is an incredibly egregious example of Republicans deliberately committing election fraud by artificially selecting for voters more likely to vote Republican (NRA members) and against voters more likely to vote Democrat (college students).

Not everyone has state-issued photo ID, and getting it is a bitch if you're over 18 (plus they don't prove citizenship). Most people have a Social Security card around, but that doesn't prove citizenship (or voting eligibility) any more than a college ID does. I'll be damned if I know where my selective service (draft) registration card is, and while I have a passport most people do not and they're rather expensive and inconvenient to get.

The laws Republicans have been passing deliberately disproportionately affect young people, the old, the poor, and other minorities, because they are less likely to have the money to meet the requirements or the ability to take sufficient time off of work to get to the DMV for hours, or city hall for a passport, or what have you.

Likewise registration drives, there is simply no explanation for fighting against those other than voter suppression. There is already accountability for those holding drives if they deliberately try to commit fraud - and they cannot be held accountable for submitting fraudulent registrations they are given as they are required by law to submit all registrations to ensure they are not engaging in voter suppression by throwing out valid registrations. Ultimately there is accountability for voter registration, but it is the job of the department handling elections - typically the Secretary of State - to validate registrations.

Some groups which engage in voter registration drives even go above and beyond, flagging registrations that they believe may be fraudulent to help the state. In fact that's the only thing ACORN had to do with voter fraud until Republicans decided they were going to take them down for the cardinal sin of trying to increase disadvantaged voter turnout.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:23 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:And then there's the Kochs and their habit of sending mailers giving people faulty information about voting
Don't forget the robo-calls!
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:03 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:The laws Republicans have been passing deliberately disproportionately affect young people, the old, the poor, and other minorities, because they are less likely to have the money to meet the requirements or the ability to take sufficient time off of work to get to the DMV for hours, or city hall for a passport, or what have you.


How the hell do they have jobs without ID? You need ID just to get a job in the first place. Unless you want to argue that Government workplace regulations tend to fuck over the poor, which is what we Libertarians have been saying for years.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Nordic Einar » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:14 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:The laws Republicans have been passing deliberately disproportionately affect young people, the old, the poor, and other minorities, because they are less likely to have the money to meet the requirements or the ability to take sufficient time off of work to get to the DMV for hours, or city hall for a passport, or what have you.


How the hell do they have jobs without ID? You need ID just to get a job in the first place. Unless you want to argue that Government workplace regulations tend to fuck over the poor, which is what we Libertarians have been saying for years.


This just in: low level employment positions (like those held by many disadvantaged classes and urban poor) often pay in cash, ignore hiring regulations (and thus worker protection regulations as well) and generally treat low incoming people poorly. Also, sometimes they accept out of date ID/invalid ID because they understand it can be hard to get and are trying to give a disadvantaged person a helping hand.

Also: people on the internet don't understand and are shocked to learn things about the lives of disadvantaged poor. More at 11.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:23 am UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:This just in: low level employment positions (like those held by many disadvantaged classes and urban poor) often pay in cash, ignore hiring regulations (and thus worker protection regulations as well) and generally treat low incoming people poorly. Also, sometimes they accept out of date ID/invalid ID because they understand it can be hard to get and are trying to give a disadvantaged person a helping hand.

Or one has a job or works for an agency and the ID expires and it's generally a non-issue so they forget.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Nordic Einar » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:54 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:This just in: low level employment positions (like those held by many disadvantaged classes and urban poor) often pay in cash, ignore hiring regulations (and thus worker protection regulations as well) and generally treat low incoming people poorly. Also, sometimes they accept out of date ID/invalid ID because they understand it can be hard to get and are trying to give a disadvantaged person a helping hand.

Or one has a job or works for an agency and the ID expires and it's generally a non-issue so they forget.


That too! My background in construction in Detroit was showing through there - I expect the above is extremely common.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: speising and 15 guests