Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[PleaseBlitz]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 Are you suggesting people should be able to vote online? My issue is the idea of a secret ballot. Let's assume that a husband wife couple has a husband who is a die hard trump supporter. And he wants his wife to vote for trump also. Now she actually hates trump and wants to vote for the other person. Right now she can tell her husband she voted for trump after walking into the booth in voting for the other candidate. Because the husband can't see it. Online voting would allow the husband to sit over her shoulder and watch who she voted for. How would you fix that?

 

Good guys with guns. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Right now she can tell her husband she voted for trump after walking into the booth in voting for the other candidate. Because the husband can't see it. Online voting would allow the husband to sit over her shoulder and watch who she voted for. How would you fix that?

Do it on her phone when he isn’t around?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

How do you feel about your government having a record of when you voted, where you were, and who you voted for?  

I mean... fine. Everything except who you voted for is already recorded (although party affiliation is).

 

I can think of some other online activities that I’d prefer not be on record.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

27 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Do it on her phone when he isn’t around?

Is this serious?

 

I don't want to post all the issues with this if it's just sarcasm.  My meter may be off.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is this serious?

 

I don't want to post all the issues with this if it's just sarcasm.  My meter may be off.

I actually wasn't sure if your post was serious. If a wife isn't able to vote online without her husband watching her, there are some larger domestic issues with that family.

 

Right now we're getting less than 60% of eligible voters to the polls. We're going to scrap a system that would increase the number of people participating in the democratic process by tens of millions because of a few drunken assholes who might say, "I'm gonna sit here and watch to make sure you vote for Trump" ?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I actually wasn't sure if your post was serious. If a wife isn't able to vote online without her husband watching her, there are some larger domestic issues with that family.

 

 

And sadly there are many families that do have larger domestic issues.  

 

There are many people here vastly more qualified to discuss the security concerns of a vote by phone system.  The potential loss of it being a secret ballot is to me just as big of a concern.  The fact that you think it would only be "a few drunk assholes" makes me question how seriously you have considered the possible implications. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

5 hours ago, Larry said:

Now I am absolutely am not arguing that there's nothing wrong with our system. (Including a number of problems which are being caused deliberately). Just saying that demanding that all elections must be over three hours after closing is an unrealistic demand

 

That wasn’t really my point. 

 

Obviously for absentee and provisional they may arrive after Election Day. But the process to tabulate votes correctly and quickly on Election Day is there and it would be very easy to then run the ballots arriving later efficiently too

[Mooka]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

  Are you suggesting people should be able to vote online? My issue is the idea of a secret ballot. Let's assume that a husband wife couple has a husband who is a die hard trump supporter. And he wants his wife to vote for trump also. Now she actually hates trump and wants to vote for the other person. Right now she can tell her husband she voted for trump after walking into the booth in voting for the other candidate. Because the husband can't see it. Online voting would allow the husband to sit over her shoulder and watch who she voted for. How would you fix that?

 

How is that any different from absentee or mail-in ballots right now with a pen and paper? 

 

A husband simply looking at the phone isn't really a crime, but the second he says you can't vote for said person, or you have to vote for this person, or even reprimanding his spouse while voting is felony voter intimidation. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The fact that you think it would only be "a few drunk assholes" makes me question how seriously you have considered the possible implications. 

I did not seriously consider your argument, you’re correct. It’s a silly one. 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

That wasn’t really my point. 

 

Obviously for absentee and provisional they may arrive after Election Day. But the process to tabulate votes correctly and quickly on Election Day is there and it would be very easy to then run the ballots arriving later efficiently too

 

The delay isn't in running the ballots through the card reader.  (I'm sure that that's a factor.  Maybe in the case of some recounts, maybe a day?)  

 

It's dealing with ballot 13427, which the GOP is challenging because they claim that the signature doesn't match the voter registration.  

 

Apparently, in some cases, it's even the law that the ballot cannot be rejected without giving the voter a chance to object to the rejection.  

 

SF Chronicle: California’s vote count takes a very long time. It’s set up that way

 

Quote

 

As state election officials watch an angry President Trump and other partisan leaders slam what they claim are slow vote counts, political influence and delayed results in Florida, Georgia and Arizona elections, they have one thought: That could be California.

 

Days after Tuesday’s election, a handful of closely watched congressional races in California still haven’t been decided and a final count is days and possibly weeks away.

 

If the results from those California races were needed to determine which party would control the House, “the only question would be what names Trump was calling (Secretary of State) Alex Padilla,” said Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., which collects and analyzes voter information.

 

Changes in rules, the growing use of mail ballots and efforts to ensure that more people get a chance to vote and that all the ballots cast are counted have stretched the election night tally deep into November.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[LD0506]

And again we see that the single biggest issue brought to light in the midterms was voting-access to voting, denial of voting, scurrilous efforts to usurp voting and ex post facto efforts to nullify the results and intent of voting.

 

Ditch all the BS about impeachment and other stuff, the Dems ought to (if they are true to their rhetoric) get out there and lead a national charge to address voting in this country. If you fix that you can fix other problems much more easily .

[LadySkinsFan]

I was wondering if it was appropriate to post the following here, the last few posts say Yes!

 

stolen...but true.

 

Republicans don't really want America to be a democracy.

 

Republicans who are aligned with corporations and the wealthy want to turn America into a plutocracy or an oligarchy (kleptocracy) like Russia.

 

Republicans who are aligned with the religious right want to turn America into a theocracy, like Afghanistan is under the Taliban.

 

And the Republicans who are aligned with the far-right want to turn America into an authoritarian fascist nationalist dictatorship, like Germany was under the Nazis.

 

Allowing America to be a true democracy -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people is just too liberal for the modern-day Republican party to accept.

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I was wondering if it was appropriate to post the following here, the last few posts say Yes!

 

stolen...but true.

 

Republicans don't really want America to be a democracy.

 

Republicans who are aligned with corporations and the wealthy want to turn America into a plutocracy or an oligarchy (kleptocracy) like Russia.

 

Republicans who are aligned with the religious right want to turn America into a theocracy, like Afghanistan is under the Taliban.

 

And the Republicans who are aligned with the far-right want to turn America into an authoritarian fascist nationalist dictatorship, like Germany was under the Nazis.

 

Allowing America to be a true democracy -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people is just too liberal for the modern-day Republican party to accept.

 

A   Try the decaf......

B   I don't think you're wrong

C  The Ds on a national, institutional level aren't all that invested in democracy either

D   Everyone has a list of what's wrong these days, some valid, some fulla ****, but overwhelmingly there seems to be much more activity in pissing and moaning than there is in WTF do we do about any of it?

E   ................. I don't even know what E is now...........

 

😄 I d5on't believe that the Democratic Party is all that invested i 

 

[Jumbo]

Hate to say this but a general political topic that may deserve its own thread is this deal going on now in WI and MI where the party being voted out (r's in this case) is trying to pass legislation to restrict the power of the governor or other state offices that have been won by their opposition. I don't care who's doing it to who when, I'd like to see the culprits drug into the street and beaten by elderly voters with their canes and purses until cured, and I'd like to learn more of the history of this bull**** in recent decades, the frequency/severity, and which parties were engaged in which cases.

[Isifhan]

1 minute ago, Jumbo said:

Hate to say this but a general political topic that may deserve its own thread is this deal going on now in WI and MI where the party being voted out (r's in this case) is trying to pass legislation to restrict the power of the governor or other state offices that have been won by their opposition. I don't care who's doing it to who when, I'd like to see the culprits drug into the street and beaten by elderly voters with their canes and purses until cured, and I'd like to learn more of the history of this bull**** in recent decades, the frequency/severity, and which parties were engaged in which cases.

They are allowing exactly 1 minute of public debate from 12:30 - 12:31 according to the schedule in WI.  Really disgusting and I'm surprised the national media isn't picking up on this very much if at all. 

[Warhead36]

Historically Republicans win when people don't vote.

[Bang]

Enemies of this nation.

In every sense of the word. 
Enemies.

 

~Bang

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

11 hours ago, Jumbo said:

Hate to say this but a general political topic that may deserve its own thread is this deal going on now in WI and MI where the party being voted out (r's in this case) is trying to pass legislation to restrict the power of the governor or other state offices that have been won by their opposition. I don't care who's doing it to who when, I'd like to see the culprits drug into the street and beaten by elderly voters with their canes and purses until cured, and I'd like to learn more of the history of this bull**** in recent decades, the frequency/severity, and which parties were engaged in which cases.

Just to confirm, how much of this can or cannot be overturned once the new government comes into power?  That its happening is bad, that they are making permanent changes is different convo (aka "worse) and one that needs to be had to make sure neither side does that.

[Going Commando]

Anyone else see this NYTimes article from yesterday about the digital divide?  This is germane to our discussion about the feasibility of conducting polling online.  Half the country doesn't use internet the way we do.  There are probably third world countries with better and more ubiquitous broadband than we have.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/technology/digital-divide-us-fcc-microsoft.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Technology

 

Quote

Digital Divide Is Wider Than We Think, Study Says

 

Ferry County in northeastern Washington spans more than 2,200 square miles of mostly forestland, rivers and lakes. And according to the Federal Communications Commission, everyone in the sprawling county has access to broadband internet.

But that is not the reality experienced by the roughly 7,500 residents of this county, which is rich in natural beauty but internet-poor.

The county seat, Republic, has basic broadband service, supplied by a community cable TV company owned by residents. But go beyond the cluster of blocks in the small town, and the high-speed service drops off quickly. People routinely drive into town to use Wi-Fi in the public library and other spots for software updates, online shopping or schoolwork, said Elbert Koontz, Republic’s mayor.

“We don’t really have broadband coverage across the county,” Mr. Koontz said. “We’re out in the woods.”

A new study by Microsoft researchers casts a light on the actual use of high-speed internet across the country, and the picture it presents is very different from the F.C.C. numbers. Their analysis, presented at a Microsoft event on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., suggests that the speedy access is much more limited than the F.C.C. data shows.

Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans. The discrepancy is particularly stark in rural areas. In Ferry County, for example, Microsoft estimates that only 2 percent of people use broadband service, versus the 100 percent the federal government says have access to the service.

[PleaseBlitz]

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Just to confirm, how much of this can or cannot be overturned once the new government comes into power?  That its happening is bad, that they are making permanent changes is different convo (aka "worse) and one that needs to be had to make sure neither side does that.

 

I think that, based on the precedent set in NC the last cycle, there won't be much the incoming Dem officials will be able to do.  In NC, the Dem governor had to call a referendum so voters could overturn the changes the legislature made (2 years later).  

Here is a good summary.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Conflicts_between_Gov._Roy_Cooper_and_the_North_Carolina_General_Assembly

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think that, based on the precedent set in NC the last cycle, there won't be much the incoming Dem officials will be able to do.  In NC, the Dem governor had to call a referendum so voters could overturn the changes the legislature made (2 years later).  

 

That makes sense, more like trying to slow down the Dems in what policy they can enact until GOP can hopefully get power again. 

 

Believe it was NC that banned local governments from deciding on whether to take Confederate statues down, what's led to so many being toppled over, the legal process the right way basically wasn't allowed anymore or intentionally made damn near impossible.