Trump said this weeks election are the most important ever and for the first time ever I agree with him.
Do you always vote? Do you think there’s a point? What about mandatory voting?
I think voting should not be elective, and should be mandatory. That said I dislike that I have as much voting power as Cletus who always votes R and is a rampant racist, but it is what it is.
I try to vote whenever possible. We just had a municipal election and I voted for our mayor reluctantly. He’s not bad, which is a huge improvement over who preceded him, but we could also do better.
I've voted in every general election where I've been eligible to vote. If I don't participate, politicians have no incentive to try to garner my support. I've also volunteered for a couple of campaigns, mainly to help high schoolers register for voting.
Australia has mandatory voting, and it doesn't stop them from electing the occasional demagogue. But I still like it being an expectation of citizenship along with jury duty, because it would theoretically incentivize elected officials to make it easier to participate in the process.
The RDM votes. He hasn't missed a presidential election yet, and now he votes in midterms and school board elections and junk. He has a pretty good congressman already, which is nice, and a chance to elect a very good Attorney General for New York.
The RDM has been right: 263,194,431,295,771,222,402,819,021,768 times.
WaWard wrote:The RDM is too damn right all the time.
I don't like the idea of mandatory voting. First of all, the kinds of people who don't vote because they don't want to are not necessarily people I'd want to make decisions for us. Secondly, it kind of goes against the idea of the freedom and self determination of democracy when you force it upon people.
They should just make changes so people who actually want to vote can vote more easily, not force people who don't. We already have too many people who don't know what the fcuk is going on voting.
Mitsurugi CP wrote:If only there were a way we could reliably disenfranchise all the stupid people without accidentally disenfranchising non-stupid people.
Yeah. I'm not saying we should disenfranchise stupid people. I just don't think we should force them to vote and maybe count it as a blessing when they choose not to.
UNDINE (YES)!
I think I've voted in ever general, local and mayoral election since I first registered (about 2001). I generally get what I want on a local level (because I tend to live in places where the majority of people aren't horrible), but I'm used to not being in the majority/on the winning side. nationally (as with the Europe referendum)
This was actually a pretty massive victory for Democrats. They won the House vote by more than 7% (possibly even more than that) which is more than Republicans won by in 2010, when they had their wave election. Sadly, this county is gerrymandered to hell and back, so the results aren't nearly as impressive as they should be, and the Senate is just a debacle, so the whole thing is going to be treated as a pseudoloss for Democrats. Which is a garbage take.
The RDM has been right: 263,194,431,295,771,222,402,819,021,768 times.
WaWard wrote:The RDM is too damn right all the time.
But why? The republicans have sunken lower and lower and did everything they could to not collaborate. How could they have that stance? They’re acquiescing to their views
If there's any silver lining to the stance it's that a whole bunch of the more aggressive, progressive, younger candidates won last night, and Republican-lite people like Mike Donnelly lost.
The RDM has been right: 263,194,431,295,771,222,402,819,021,768 times.
WaWard wrote:The RDM is too damn right all the time.
Ward is right. It's completely unsurprising for the Democrats to talk about working together, but also completely pathetic and revolting. Tou think the people who voted them in want them to work with the people who have been systematically dismantling our country, disenfranchising them, and pushing democrats out of the legislative process to an unprecedented degree when they only hold a slim majority (that was rigged by gerrymandering and voter suppression in the first place)? Fucking grow a pair for once. Not only will dems never hold a majority for lobg because they're too weak, they guarantee that all they can ever do is undo some damage of the Republicans and not at as fast ebough to keep up. So fuck you to the conciliatory dems.
The RDM more thinks the Dems, once they've actually looked at the data, are going to see the conciliatory attitude is a loser overall. The fiery people did better. O'Rourke made a legit go of it. It should move the needle internally for Dems. Theoretically.
The RDM has been right: 263,194,431,295,771,222,402,819,021,768 times.
WaWard wrote:The RDM is too damn right all the time.
RDM wrote:The RDM more thinks the Dems, once they've actually looked at the data, are going to see the conciliatory attitude is a loser overall. The fiery people did better. O'Rourke made a legit go of it. It should move the needle internally for Dems. Theoretically.
I don't think Dems look at data. At least not with any kind of intelligent perspective. It's stupid as hell that these guys in red states try to basically be Republican to win. You can't beat Republicans at their own game and you're not going to motivate Democrat voters by using Republican talking points.
The RDM disagrees (somewhat). The guard of Democrats that think being almost Republicans helps them win are slowly trickling away. It's going to be a while before they're out of power over the party, if it ever truly happens.
The RDM has been right: 263,194,431,295,771,222,402,819,021,768 times.
WaWard wrote:The RDM is too damn right all the time.
RDM wrote:The RDM more thinks the Dems, once they've actually looked at the data, are going to see the conciliatory attitude is a loser overall. The fiery people did better. O'Rourke made a legit go of it. It should move the needle internally for Dems. Theoretically.
This has been the case for years, but so often, Dems are too cowardly to juxtapose themselves on key GOP talking points in read leaning/swing states, ignoring a voter base that is about as keen on obedience as feral cats, and banking on an increasingly small "independent/undecided" voter pool that's also not going to be convinced by a "Republican lite" presentation.
Not as exciting as all the US stuff happening this week, but BC is having a referendum on voting systems for the province. I mailed in my ballot this week. :3
Current First Past The Post system vs Proportional Representation in various forms, which all seem kind of complicated but probably still worth it.
