|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Voter registration doesn't expire or go stale.
Actually in my state of Tennessee they will purge registered voters after inactivity of 8 years. Which is what happened to me, despite the fact that I voted in the 2012 election.
That hit a LOT of people by surprise around here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Voter registration doesn't expire or go stale.Actually in my state of Tennessee they will purge registered voters after inactivity of 8 years. Which is what happened to me, despite the fact that I voted in the 2012 election.
That hit a LOT of people by surprise around here.
wasn't a surprise, they were planning that for a while..
See now you are just being negative! :-)
I did not say it would happen I said it should happen.
Denying reality is a large part of how we got here.
People saying we should change the 2 party system, i'm going to vote third party, i'm going to vote for the candidate i want, neither candidate appeals to me etc. was a big factor in getting us here.
If you think that the two party system is beneficial to the bulk of the Country at large THAT is denying reality. I could list ad nauseam the ways in which the Democratic party has screwed people. Hillary was a bad candidate who stood for bad policies - bad in a different way from Trump but bad nonetheless.
These parties are in existence because too many people support them blindly. A true third, fourth, fifth, etc. party movement is needed else the reigns of power will remain in the grip of the few and the powerful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wasn't a surprise, they were planning that for a while..Voter registration doesn't expire or go stale.Actually in my state of Tennessee they will purge registered voters after inactivity of 8 years. Which is what happened to me, despite the fact that I voted in the 2012 election.
That hit a LOT of people by surprise around here.
It was to the people that got purged, namely because the ball was dropped, whether intentionally or out of incompetence, in informing voters that they had been purged like they were supposed to.
Or for people like me who hadn't been inactive for 8 years and still got purged.
Actually in my state of Tennessee they will purge registered voters after inactivity of 8 years.
Michigan used to have a law like that, but it was declared unconstitutional back in the 70s. I don't remember if it was the state constitution or the federal constitution; i suspect state.
If things ever slow down, perhaps a local lawyer can take a case to the Kentucky Supreme Court about that law
Edited to add:
And all the more reason voting in local elections is an important part of the democratic process: If you vote on the local stuff, you won't face this issue.
Yes.Keep in mind that I was predicting a Democalypse back when Brexit broke out, when everyone else thought that the Clinton 2.0 Presidency was a done deal.Actually it's the other way around. His side is on the ascendency right now. And if something doesn't step over the rotting corpse of the Democratic Party, it's going to get a lot worse in 2018.so let me get this straight.
Everything is Jake so long as people who disagree with you keep their mouths shut, those who are different from you do not act differently or call attention to their differences in front of you(a challenge in my case but if the invisible man could wear bandages and sunglasses and a fedora, so can I) , and everyone overall refuses to congregate in groups that appeal to their political interests while still respecting your own?
You're in for a bad time, friend.
Heh, just a few months ago the demise of the Republican party was all the rage...
The demise of a two party system should be the focus of anyone who is interested in Democracy.
Quite prescient then.
I did not see that post. Did you think it was because the Democrats supported Hillary or because Trump would create enough groundswell to bring voters to his side that normally don't vote Republican?
I agree.
Fun facts for the future:
Most states let you register to vote when you apply for a driver's license.
Most states let you update your voter address when you update your driver's license address.
If you are registered to vote in one place, and do not register to vote in another place, most states allow you to vote one last time at your old registered address
If you aren't registered to vote yet, do so immediately. Voter registration doesn't expire or go stale. And many communities have local elections* and tax issues coming up over the spring and summer.
*You know: the ones you need to become involved in to make sure we get politicians who reflect our values.
I voted at my last place of residence as I moved in October, I was still on the rolls and had no problems voting.
Or for people like me who hadn't been inactive for 8 years and still got purged.
s%$*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think that the two party system is beneficial to the bulk of the Country at large THAT is denying reality.
Stop that.
I did NOT say that.
I did NOT hint that.
I did NOT , in any way, shape or form imply that. If you need to straw man my position in order to refute what i'm "saying" because you can't refute what I'm actually saying then that's a sign that you need to reconsider your position.
I did not say it is beneficial for the country.
It is NOT beneficial for the country.
What it IS inevitable give our winner take all republic
I could list ad nauseam the ways in which the Democratic party has screwed people. Hillary was a bad candidate who stood for bad policies - bad in a different way from Trump but bad nonetheless.
This is why trump won. This is the part YOU can change for next time.
being punched in the face and being set on fire in a dumpster full of medical waste are both bad in different ways, but one is infinitely preferable to the other. Simplifying the problem to "bad" and "bad" equates things that are in no way shape or form equal. This is politics. You are not getting what you want. Not being hosed is not an option, but when you can affect the difference between "garden hose" and "niagra falls during a monsoon" you take the garden hose.
These parties are in existence because too many people support them blindly. A true third, fourth, fifth, etc. party movement is needed else the reigns of power will remain in the grip of the few and the powerful.
No. Please stop dismissing people as blind because they disagree with you. A two party system inevitably drops out of systems where you only need to beat the next biggest group to win. Your options are to be ~51% of the vote or be completely irrelevant. there is no middle ground. Coalescing 2 or 3 parties into one big bloc wins you the election unless the other party does the same thing. Once either party does that you HAVE to respond in kind, and you can't stop doing that until they'll stop it too.
Changing that would require people to vote against their own job security. it would require 60%+ of people to vote against their own job security. It isn't happening.
Deal with the situation you have not the situation you want. Democrats are bland, democrats have no spine, they aren't as much better than republicans as we'd like, but they are better than republicans. Those are your options. Thats the change you CAN make happen.
So, BNW, no matter what festering pile of excrement one's party of choice puts up, they're always going to be better than the other guy?
How is this not "blindly" voting down party lines?
Why is it, every time people start to think a three party system can solve all or even some of our problems the country goes to s%+~.
Eerie, almost like they're connected, someway...
"I think I'll vote for Nader, what's the worst that can happen!"
"I'm going to vote for Johnson, there's no way Trump will get elected!"
Johnson took more votes from the person some people hoped he wouldn't than did.
It was just a placeholder name, the point stands.
If you think that the two party system is beneficial to the bulk of the Country at large THAT is denying reality.Stop that.
I did NOT say that.
I did NOT hint that.
I did NOT , in any way, shape or form imply that. If you need to straw man my position in order to refute what i'm "saying" because you can't refute what I'm actually saying then that's a sign that you need to reconsider your position.I did not say it is beneficial for the country.
It is NOT beneficial for the country.
What it IS inevitable give our winner take all republicI could list ad nauseam the ways in which the Democratic party has screwed people. Hillary was a bad candidate who stood for bad policies - bad in a different way from Trump but bad nonetheless.This is why trump won. This is the part YOU can change for next time.
being punched in the face and being set on fire in a dumpster full of medical waste are both bad in different ways, but one is infinitely preferable to the other. Simplifying the problem to "bad" and "bad" equates things that are in no way shape or form equal. This is politics. You are not getting what you want. Not being hosed is not an option, but when you can affect the difference between "garden hose" and "niagra falls during a monsoon" you take the garden hose.
These parties are in existence because too many people support them blindly. A true third, fourth, fifth, etc. party movement is needed else the reigns of power will remain in the grip of the few and the powerful.No. Please stop dismissing people as blind because they disagree with you. A two party system inevitably drops out of systems where you only need to beat the next biggest group to win. Your options are to be ~51% of the vote or be completely irrelevant. there is no middle ground. Coalescing 2 or 3 parties into one big bloc wins you the election unless the other party does the same thing. Once either party does that you HAVE to respond in kind,...
I'll respond to you point by point when I have more time. BUT for now:
You may not have implied my initial response but that was how I interpreted it. No need to overreact there BNW, I apologize if I mis-interpreted what you were saying. It was certainly not my intention to straw man you there but I can see how you could interpret my response that way.
I do agree that it is inevitable in our current system which is why I think the system needs to be changed.
More later!
So, BNW, no matter what one's party of choice puts up, they're always going to be better than the other guy?
How is this not "blindly" voting down party lines?
The parties might change someday. But it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't think it's going to happen. When you vote for a politician you aren't voting for a person, you are voting for a set of policies. Republican policies are worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, BNW, no matter what festering pile of excrement one's party of choice puts up, they're always going to be better than the other guy?
How is this not "blindly" voting down party lines?
It's not "blindly" voting down anything. The way the American electoral system is structured is that the winning candidate is going to be from one of the Big TWO. That's simply the plain fact. When the primary dust settled, the choice was literally only between Clinton and Trump. There was no miracle that was going to make Stein or Johnson, relevant candidates. IF Sanders had for instance insisted on pushing ahead with his candidacy, the result would have been a Democrat vote split in two with Trump repeating Nixon's original landslide victory in a simmilar scenario, with him winning the popular vote and nearly all of the Electoral ones as well.
The only time this changes, and it HAS changed is when one of the Big Two suffers a fatal meltdown and creates a vacuum for an organised third party to take it's spot. It happened with the election of Abraham Lincoln as the Whigs imploded for the final time, enabling the newly minted Republican Party to take their spot in a severely divided country. It MAY happen in 2020 if the Democratic Party continues it's death spiral in 2018, as the Congressional seats in both Houses that are in expiry are almost entirely Democratic, and signs are that the polarisation in the electorate isn't going away anytime soon.
|
So, BNW, no matter what festering pile of excrement one's party of choice puts up, they're always going to be better than the other guy?
How is this not "blindly" voting down party lines?
Let's suppose that Hillary Clinton was the 'worst' presidential candidate, in terms of electability, the Democrats have fielded in the past ~40 years.
Can you name one candidate fielded by the GOP in the same time frame who would be more acceptable to Democrat voters than Hillary Clinton?
I cannot.
John McCain occasionally doesn't make me want to vomit... I'd still never vote for him over Hillary... or Dukakis... or Carter... or any other 'poor choice' Democrat.
Ergo, while it is not a given that the 'festering pile of excrement' your party puts forward will be more acceptable than the other candidate... that HAS consistently been the case... and I doubt most of the people who voted for Bush or Trump would say any different.
This isn't a matter of bad politicians. It is a fundamental disagreement within the population... driven by markedly different understandings of reality. Everything Republicans do makes perfect sense... if you believe the crazy things they do. Democrats trying to stop global warming makes perfect sense... given their belief that it exists.
The problem is false beliefs driven by pervasive propaganda and absolutely NO consequences for blatant lying. Trump is now the most extreme representation of this phenomena, but it has been building steadily for decades.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It MAY happen in 2020 if the Democratic Party continues it's death spiral in 2018, as the Congressional seats in both Houses that are in expiry are almost entirely Democratic, and signs are that the polarisation in the electorate isn't going away anytime soon.
I don't see any chance of the Democrats imploding any time soon. The party holding the presidency almost always loses ground and the Democrats have been down like this before.
In any case, political parties don't implode solely because they have lost ground. They do so when they have lost relevance. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin. More people voted for Democrats to be elected to Congress than did for Republicans. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. Issue surveys consistently find majorities agreeing with Democrat positions on most topics. Et cetera.
The Democrats are down because Obama held the presidency for the last eight years and fired up Trump's 'base of deplorables'. Now Trump is in office and we're seeing a resurgence of liberal activism. Barring extraordinary circumstances that will whittle away at the GOP's lead.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Told myself after the election I wouldn't do political threads anymore, because I have better places to put my energy regarding politics, but there's energy here too so I'll take a shot. While protesting's great & highly visible there are other ways to contribute as well. Many of you probably know a lot of this, but here it is in no particular order:
1) Donate to advocacy organizations. If you have one or two clear favorites, feel free to make it a small monthly donation (I do this with ACLU & Planned Parenthood). These are groups with experience and expertise in their fields, by giving them money you make it possible for them to do their work. Many naturally also offer internships (some paid, many unfortunately not) for any students reading.
2) Join your local party chapter. For all the complaining about the Democratic Party it's a very porous organization, you can join in at almost every level in pretty much any county. Local politics is critical in its own right since politics at that level will affect YOU personally the most, but involvement at the city/county level is also good practice for the bigger stages if that's what you want. It's also by and large ignored by most voters. Want to change the party? Find ten friends whom you agree with and start showing up to the local chapter meetings regularly. In six months you'll be running the place.
3) Regularly call and/or write letters to your representatives--State & local. Even better is arriving at a town-hall or scheduling a meeting at their office. Emails are easy to disregard & should be your last choice but not dismissed. Follow your representatives on Facebook & Twitter, many of them advertise their public events. If they don't, call their office to ask if there are public forums coming up.
4) Build your local communities. Not all activism has to be directly related to politics, you can build goodwill for your causes by other means. Volunteer with non-political groups like literacy centers, soup kitchens, battered womens' shelters, suicide hotlines, give blood regularly, there's a bazillion possibilities. I can't promise you that it'll win any elections, but it strengthens the ties of community & the fabric of our society. Personally I find it good for my mental health too--another little way to push back the darkness.
5) Take care of yourself too. Not all of these suggestions are a right fit for everyone, and no one should try to do everything all the time. Please don't be ashamed to take a week off if you need the break, it doesn't make you any less of an activist or diminish your contributions.
There's probably a lot more that should be said but I think that's enough for now. If anyone is interested in specific organizations or ways to be involved please don't hesitate to PM me. We're in a bad way right now, but Trump/GOP can be fought and can be beaten, don't panic. Love & solidarity to you all.
6) Thought of a bonus one: when you communicate with your representatives, tell them clearly & concisely what your red-lines are. Follow their votes. If they cross your line(s), encourage & support a primary challenger who more closely aligns with your preferences. If there is one thing we can learn from the Tea Party it's this. Politicians are (mostly) rational actors and will modify their behavior to avoid losing their jobs.
So, BNW, no matter what festering pile of excrement one's party of choice puts up, they're always going to be better than the other guy?
How is this not "blindly" voting down party lines?
Let's suppose that Hillary Clinton was the 'worst' presidential candidate, in terms of electability, the Democrats have fielded in the past ~40 years.
Can you name one candidate fielded by the GOP in the same time frame who would be more acceptable to Democrat voters than Hillary Clinton?
Gerald Ford
I dunno, Richard Nixon might've done okay.
Can I rant? Okay.
The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.
Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.
Democrats are really going to need to redefine their tactics. They need to stop abandoning red and blue states' local elections. They need to stop assuming midterms are a lost cause without even trying. They need to reach back towards economic justice to recover young voters and Rust Belt workers who feel left behind and don't bother voting anymore. And most of all, they need someone who isn't Cory Booker to run in 2020.
*Not to say McGovern would have won with the numbers he got, but he likely would have beat Trump in this election.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Gerald FordLet's suppose that Hillary Clinton was the 'worst' presidential candidate, in terms of electability, the Democrats have fielded in the past ~40 years.
Can you name one candidate fielded by the GOP in the same time frame who would be more acceptable to Democrat voters than Hillary Clinton?
Outside the specified time period.
That said, I can't really say whether I would have voted for him over any of the Democrat candidates since then... I was only six when he left office.