Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Rethinking American Politics


vcczar
 Share

Rethinking American Politics  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following do you agree with?

    • Voters need to be less partisan
    • American politicians need to be less partisan
    • Voters need to be more non-partisan or more bipartisan
    • American politicians need to be more non-partisan or more bipartisan
    • We need more moderates in politics
    • We need more populists in politics
    • We need more anti-establishment politicians
    • We need to reform and regulate the media and social media
    • We need to restrict voting access
    • We need to increase voting access
    • We need to have few restrictions on gerrymandering
      0
    • We need to increase restrictions or ban gerrymandering and create redistricting reform
    • We need electoral equity for 3rd parties so they aren't completely shadowed and stifled by the duopoly
    • We need to abolish the EC
    • We need ranked-choice voting or multi-round voting
    • Politicians that are strongly believed to be ethically or morally challenged should be seriously investigated by a non-partisan group, and if found to be ethically/morally challenged, be forced to resign and/or face severe punishment
    • Candidates, nominees, and sitting politicians should be forced to have their life, records, history, etc completely transparent for voters.
    • It should be easier to amend the Constitution
    • Other (mention below)


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dobs said:

F1F2D506-3BE6-41CA-A6AC-3D6D3AF1EDE4.jpeg.fc1d16a3cd13a18a7d60f16c7ac4fcdf.jpeg05FCB3E6-0014-4852-BD8F-846695E90037.png.f109fbb8e5aef875ba1f0e4971aaf37d.png

Well, "restricting voting access" is just a term to make voter IDs and comparable laws look bad. These things are in fact exactly what is needed. I mean even in Austria everyone needs to have an ID to vote in an election. 

Furthermore I strongly believe things like absentee voting, mail-in voting, early voting, decentralized polling places etc. should have never existed or at least just in very narrow circumstances. If one can't even make enough time to fulfill their democratic duties the government shouldn't work to make it more comfortable...

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Well, "restricting voting access" is just a term to make voter IDs and comparable laws look bad. These things are in fact exactly what is needed. I mean even in Austria everyone needs to have an ID to vote in an election. 

Furthermore I strongly believe things like absentee voting, mail-in voting, early voting, decentralized polling places etc. should have never existed or at least just in very narrow circumstances. If one can't even make enough time to fulfill their democratic duties the government shouldn't work to make it more comfortable...

Christian, voter ID laws were never mentioned. The question is whether or not you think it should be harder to vote. You said yes. Which means you think the government ought to take actions to restrict access to voting (however you think the government can best do that.)

The question wasnt about any specific policy- it was about should it be harder or easier to vote. You said harder. Furthermore, I think it’s really interesting that you don’t think it should be as painless as possible to fulfill ones duties, especially when many lower income folks are working double hours to make ends meet. Maybe if they had the time to vote and we conservatives both actively spoke to how government continues to marginalize them AND how we support making it easier for them to express that frustration we would win in more landslides.

But hey, why do the hard work of evangelizing the conservative message and perfecting outreach when we can just restrict voter access.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

How would you regulate social media, and force politicians lives and history to be completely transparent out of curiosity?

I'm not sure what others would suggest, but I think one could regulate how political organization or political news is presented on social media. What I'm most concerned with is two things: 1) media that purposely spreads misinformation; 2) media that is clearly biased/partisan, and so gives a kind of misinformation via bias propaganda. Basically, I want to encourage media organization to be reliable, neutral, and not organizations for propaganda, whether progressives, establishment, or Trumpian. I think Opinion articles are generally fine, but the presentation of Breaking News should be portrayed neutrally and factually. I just don't like blatant lying.

I think media organizations should be accountable (and politicians as well). Sometimes a politician doesn't know that they're lying. That's fine. If Biden or Trump gives misinformation once, have the fact checkers correct them, notify the campaigns. If they tell the same lie, penalize the campaign/politician. If they tell the same lie again, then a stricter punishment. It should be criminal to run for an office representing the people and perversely lying.  There's a difference between opinions and facts. A fact has an answer, giving the wrong answer knowingly is lying. An opinion couldn't and shouldn't be punished, obviously. 

The transparency part is easy: mental and physical health records, taxation/financial records, military records, education records, criminal records, job history records, etc are all viewable by the public. Obviously some things like SSN, current residence(s) addresses, personal phone number, and things like that won't be viewable for US citizens. None of these would bar someone from voting, but they would be available so voters can decide if they are comfortable voting for someone that is clinically a "sociopath," "has severe heart disease," has billions in offshore accounts, deserted from a battle, was a D+ student in college and was caught plagiarizing multiple times, has 3 DWI with children in the car, has been fired 3x and has faced bankruptcy 2x, etc. I also think all candidates should be required to take a mental and physical health screening within 90 days of announcing their candidacy. 

I'm more eager to see the transparency than the regulation of media and social media. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Christian, voter ID laws were never mentioned. The question is whether or not you think it should be harder to vote. You said yes. Which means you think the government ought to take actions to restrict access to voting (however you think the government can best do that.)

The question wasnt about any specific policy- it was about should it be harder or easier to vote. You said harder. Furthermore, I think it’s really interesting that you don’t think it should be as painless as possible to fulfill ones duties, especially when many lower income folks are working double hours to make ends meet. Maybe if they had the time to vote and we conservatives both actively spoke to how government continues to marginalize them AND how we support making it easier for them to express that frustration we would win in more landslides.

But hey, why do the hard work of evangelizing the conservative message and perfecting outreach when we can just restrict voter access.

In one of my older polls on voting (this was maybe a year or two or three ago), he seemed like he was alright with parties using tactics to discourage voting. So I'm not surprised by his response here. I am more shocked by JViking's response considering he claims to be a Libertarian. One would think a Libertarian would not be in favor of restricted voting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In one of my older polls on voting (this was maybe a year or two or three ago), he seemed like he was alright with parties using tactics to discourage voting. So I'm not surprised by his response here. I am more shocked by JViking's response considering he claims to be a Libertarian. One would think a Libertarian would not be in favor of restricted voting. 

Well, as we know, an enlightened despot who supposedly “supports liberty” is preferable to a republic that doesn’t conform to the word of this supposed libertarian dictator.

Try wrapping your head around that one!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest shame of the US politic is probably by far gerrymandering

USA is one of these few countries in which politicians select their voters and not the opposite

It would be fair to increase fundings for third parties but it's not as shamefull as gerrymandering

Of course there are districts which will always be terribly one partisan even without gerrymandering, like it's the case in Quebec with western montreal but at least it won't be abused like it is now

In the opposite, I am not opposed to republican lawmakers who want to put more ID card conditions for voting. In France for example you do need not only to give an ID card or a passport but you also need to proove via a recent document that you live in the town/constituency where you vote to be registered in.

I had to proove that I was paying an appartment the two times I switched my polling station.

I am kind of interested to know why the US is under such a mess with voting registration.

Edited by Edouard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Timur said:

Voting access to whom? @jvikings1@ConservativeElector2

Photo ID required; severely restrict mail-in and early voting (an election is a race. the end should be a set point); no universal voter registration

That's a good start (and what comes to mind off the top of my head). None of these target any specific groups and can be applied across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a common misconception that bipartisanship does not exist within the US, especially at the federal level. In DC, there is an abundance of bipartisanship (mainly around the biggest issues, like the budget). The Establishments of both parties are actually closer together than they want people to believe (because they benefit from the view that they are better than the other side). Republicans are especially bad at that (arguably the biggest reason for the rise of someone like Trump). Mitch McConnell may claim that he's pro-life and a fiscal conservatives, but he won't expend the political capital for those issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Basically someone who is less ethical and less moral than the average up-standing citizen. 

That could be anyone.  "Ethically or morally challenged" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.  And that's not even getting into different people or groups having different ethics or morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pilight said:

That could be anyone.  "Ethically or morally challenged" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.  And that's not even getting into different people or groups having different ethics or morals.

This is very ironic

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

severely restrict mail-in and early voting (an election is a race. the end should be a set point)

In 2020 we saw historically high turnout, in-part because of mail-in voting. And while there were extraordinary circumstances surrounding that election, why should we sacrifice ways of expanding the number of those participating in our democracy on the altar of vague concepts like, "an election is a race."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, pilight said:

This is puzzling to me.  Why add extra bureaucracy?  If you're going to require photo ID why not register people automatically when they get such an ID?

I am fine with the option to ask about it when they update their ID, not automatically doing it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Blood said:

In 2020 we saw historically high turnout, in-part because of mail-in voting. And while there were extraordinary circumstances surrounding that election, why should we sacrifice ways of expanding the number of those participating in our democracy on the altar of vague concepts like, "an election is a race."?

Because mail-in ballots are not a secure way of voting and make it difficult to keep an election secure (especially in states with very poor voter registration records, ballot harvesting, and automatic send outs).

If you aren't willing to show up to vote (and have your identity be verified), then you don't deserve to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jvikings1 said:

Because mail-in ballots are not a secure way of voting and make it difficult to keep an election secure (especially in states with very poor voter registration records, ballot harvesting, and automatic send outs).

With proper funding and support mail-in voting can be made a secure process, and mail-in voting didn't pose any significant threat to the Election in 2020, when it was widely used.

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

If you aren't willing to show up to vote (and have your identity be verified), then you don't deserve to vote.

I believe in the democratic principle, and supporting the democratic principle means you want the most active and participatory democratic system possible. You know who deserves to vote? Every eligible American. Talking of who "deserves" to vote is not only ugly, but it pushes away any discussions of how we can get more people involved in the process and create a system which represents the people to the highest possible degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Blood said:

I believe in the democratic principle, and supporting the democratic principle means you want the most active and participatory democratic system possible. You know who deserves to vote? Every eligible American. Talking of who "deserves" to vote is not only ugly, but it pushes away any discussions of how we can get more people involved in the process and create a system which represents the people to the highest possible degree.

The only person who deserves to vote is Ron Paul, then we may have direct democracy by enlightened libertarian despot.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Blood said:

With proper funding and support mail-in voting can be made a secure process, and mail-in voting didn't pose any significant threat to the Election in 2020, when it was widely used.

I believe in the democratic principle, and supporting the democratic principle means you want the most active and participatory democratic system possible. You know who deserves to vote? Every eligible American. Talking of who "deserves" to vote is not only ugly, but it pushes away any discussions of how we can get more people involved in the process and create a system which represents the people to the highest possible degree.

No, mail in voting will never be secure because it involves sending ballots outside of direct supervision.

Sure if you want to vote, feel free to show up on election day, have your identity verified, and cast your ballot. If you can't make time for that, then you don't find it important enough to cast your ballot. It has never been easier to make it to the polls (due to modern transportation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

And I couldn't help but notice that @Dobs, @DakotaHale, @ConservativeElector2, and @MrPotatoTed do not support the lifting of the artificial and incumbency-abusing restrictions on, and suppression of, Third Party and Independent candidates by which the Duopoly rigs American elections, squashes any opposition candidate's REAL chances as thoroughly as any Dominant Party system in an African Emerging Democracy or any Party of Power system in a Post-Soviet State (many of whom are hypocritically scolded by the U.S. Department of State for their shoddy electoral practices), and thus support the unchallengability of the Duopoly - not because they're the best parties to win, as their track record of crime, corruption, failure, lies, and selling-out and screwing over the nation SHOULD have had them go the way of the dodo in a truly free-and-fair electoral system with real choice - but because they've so stacked the deck they can't be beaten anymore than United Russia or ZANU-PF can. These four are true supporter of Electoral Politics with Integrity, Real Choice in Leadership, Accountability of Government, the Will of the People, and Freedom of the Ballot Box! *Sarcasm detected in that last sentence*

Lol. Simmer down, I support RCV because I think it’s the fairest way to empower third parties and their candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...