What state is most likely to experience election fraud?
Displaying poll results.0 total votes.
Most Votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 11502 votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8506 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 20 comments
party problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The primary problem is the parties.
The USA has 3 major control structures in the culture: businesses, religions, and government. Each entity within these categories are major hierarchies with internal rules, norm, and oversight (when it works).
The two prevailing political parties are not really in any of these 3 categories, but are (arguably) the most influential and powerful organizations in the society. They literally control the actions and votes of public, elected officials, under threat of reduced support. Now it would seem that they are brazenly making explicit the ability to alter the election process. This level of power in the society is far beyond any other organization.
Having private organizations, without oversight that can manipulate and control elected officials is a very bad thing, and mostly what screws the "democracy" ideals that this country was designed to protect and promulgate. At this point USA has 2 socially-endorsed groups that enforce (as much as they can) one particular world-view onto member politicians with the intent of collecting revenue and support(votes). These two groups are warring over attention of the population but NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals. It is like a poker game, all either one has to do is beat the other party to win, not really play a great game (represent the people). Both parties just private organizations looking to expand their power to promote their view of how the society should be structured.
People don't need them both the voters or (more importantly) the elected officials.
Imagine a world where your senator voted for what your STATE really wanted, and not for what their party line said they should. Imagine a president who made decisions for what was really best for the county, and not for how to get his party's line promoted.
Not going to happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not going to happen because this is POLITICS.
Human beings are not wired that way. They form groups. The group can be based upon ANYTHING.
And once you start a group, by definition, everyone else is part of "them".
You do what you can to help your group and hamper "them".
Re:Not going to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the problem now is that these two, extremely powerful groups in the US are simply (and only) a tradition, and the aggregate effect is not in the best interests of representational democracy (my opinion).
We need to teach that other groups are more important than one's party. We need to make these other groups carry more weight and wean people off the idea that a politician *IS* a D or and R. They are not.
The most important group people need to be thinking about today is this: humans on earth. We're all in the same boat now (environmentally) - and unless we start telling the elected officials to start rowing together, the ships going to take on a lot more water, and so are our coastal cities.
Re:Not going to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The current political parties are ancient relics that need to get revised and realigned. As the "party faithful" go out and pick the candidates for the rest of the country, the less-than-enthusiastic "middle" will eventually come out and say, "Screw you all! I want someone who isn't as extreme as you clowns running and ruining this country any more."
Even George Washington warned against the formation of political parties.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The formation of parties is inevitable. Washington's mistake was thinking that he could simply ignore them. That's why the US Constitution doesn't even mention parties. Which is directly responsible for our incredibly screwed up primary election system, and the monopolization of power by the two leading parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A two-party system isn't really much better than a one-party system when it comes to choice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The big problem is the oversimplification that someone is either "left," "center," or "right." ...
The current political parties are trying to pigeon-hole everyone and say that if you are "pro-choice," you must also be "pro gay," "favor higher taxes, especially on the wealthy," and "favor gun control." They don't allow for the fact that you might have a "pro-choice, keep-what-you-earn, gun-toting homosexual" or something like that.
Sir, you are putting forth some dangerous and disruptive ideas. What would people do without political parties to tell them what to think?
Their parties are "opposites" on whatever the issue is, yet most everyone I know is part D and part R, depending on the issue in question.
I've noticed the same thing. But sometimes I wonder if my selection of friends is somewhat biased towards people who think for themselves. Maybe the masses really do turn to political parties for a prepackaged set of ideas, along with a set of canned debate points.
Re:Not going to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is an "average Slashdotter", and who the hell are you to presume what anybody else thinks about anything? You seem to want there to be a hive mind of "average Slashdotters" with you as the voice of reason.
Guess what, Sparky. You ain't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:party problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because your personal representative doesn't vote the way you want him to does not mean that he is voting because of the party line
No, but when they ALL vote that way, it means exactly that.
It gets worse. On many items (NAFTA. Immigration Reform. etc.) BOTH parties line up on the same side of the ball, so you can't even make a difference by jumping ship.
Re:party problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of representational democracy is that the representative THINKS and VOTES their own beliefs, as a representation of what the their constituents want. It is their responsibility to understand their constituents and represent them. This is not what politicians do at all today - politicians primarily represent their party, mostly for financial reasons.
As for not following what the constituents what, examples are rampant. This post is an excellent troll, as it starts out sounding reasonable and casts doubt on a situation that is completely obvious.
Re:party problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:party problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The older I get, the more I agree, and the more I think campaign finance along the lines of what other countries have is the solution.
Parties apply, and get $x million per candidate (or however it's decided). This money comes out of the treasury, paid by taxes. No private donation. When the Republicans (me), the Democrats (others), and the Greens and such have to play on a level field, we'll get some real competition.
Of course, as you can guess, neither party is going to vote for this. We'd need to make this a referendum or some such.
So this idea goes with Steve Forbes' tax plan and many others that are great ideas that congress won't vote for because they have such a vested interest in the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
What about non-affiliated groups who wish to either endorse a particular candidate or endorse a position which is intimately associated with a particular candidate?
As we saw in the 2004 election, the non-affiliated groups hosted an enormous transfer of money and either had much influence with the People or with the media. At that point, it's not as fair anymore.
I think most of the group of elected persons we have in Federal gov
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibiting non-affiliated groups flat-out from participating in public discourse is too much like censorship or some other free-speech limitation to me.
It's a tough issue to deal with correctly, I think. There's just too much money involved in politics. That makes the stakes high, which means more money gets poured in, and so on.
Re:party problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Just out of curiousity, under your system, if I have a couple million to blow and want to run a commercial favouring a particular candidate, would I be allowed to?
If so, then your system is essentially the same as the one we have now.
If not, that will raise some First Amendment issues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if I don't want *my* money to go to any of them?
Re: (Score:2)
You support public financing of elections then? Because without the support of large political parties, no one can get elected if even a House seat costs millions.
Re:party problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please Reconsider (Score:2)
2. all either one has to do is beat the other party...
Your simplified statement strikes a cord. But when it comes down to election time, voters are more considerate than you give them credit and the competitio
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, then you get senators like that asshat from Alaska. He is really good at getting stuff for *his* state. The rest of the country be damned. There needs to be a balance (unfortunately I don't think that there is such a thing as a stable equilibrium in democratic politics (little d)).
Re: (Score:2)
but pork and last-minute budget line are a separate problem
Re:party problem (Score:4, Informative)
He wants the equivalent of "$15,849 per person in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough" to replace a seven minute ferry ride with a bridge almost as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. That's a lot of ferry tolls they want us to pay for them to save 10 minutes every time they go there and back. Plus maintenance on the bridge. Maintenance on the ferry is probably done by the ferry owner (no idea if the ferry is publicly or privately operated).
Yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, I think the party system is all a big scam on the public. The major parties two sides of the same coin. Where there are differences, they are minor when viewed in context, and are artificially inflated to make the electorate perceive that they have some kind of choice.
The major parties agree very completely, and work quite effectively together, on the one thing that matters most to both of them - maintaining and building power and authority over ordinary citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Logical (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get your blinders off, man. For years (and sometimes even now), every time anyone on Slashdot (or almost anywhere else really) chided a Republican for doing something evil, unethical, or illegal, the GUARANTEED response was "But Clinton...". These days, it's more generic ("The Democrats did it (or something else tangentially
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the fact that my original comment was modded "overrated", even though it had not been rated by anyone else, kinda speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
1.) Remove Over/Underrated entirely (preferred)
2.) Allow Over/Underrated to be meta-modded
3.) Do not allow comments to be modded as Over or Underrated until they have received some sort of other moderation first.
I doubt any of this will act
Easy to poke fun (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easy to poke fun at the Democrats on this (and I'm not claiming that's what you're doing), but the facts are much more prosaic. When the Republican controlled Florida state legislature and the Republican Florida governor first considered moving the primaries up to make their state more relevant (and, hence, other states less relevant) there was talk that both the RNC and the DNC might not support this, but that the RNC probably would feel compelled to since it was done primarily by Republicans.
Now th
Obligatory... (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, now that I'm done with that, why would the democrats even consider this? It may be just a primary... but it's usually the most dedicated voters who turn out for primaries. Alienating them would not be a good thing for their party.
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Informative)
The whole system is screwed up in my opinion...
Re: (Score:2)
The whole system is screwed up in my opinion...
Of course. But solutions are not easy to come by. Ultimately, elections are unfair things. John Kerry got 48% of the popular vote in 2004 and gets 0% say in how the office of the President is run. The same goes for every election ever held. Somebody wins, and they get to make all of the decisions, and the only reason they have the slightest inclination to serve the people who voted for them is that they want to be elected again. For the people who didn't vote for them, and won't vote for them... they jus
Re: (Score:2)
I think the primary should be a long process that allows many states to participate and be heard. I think instead of these lame 30-60 second question debates, there should be debates that last 2 or more hours and are open ended. Lincoln-Douglas style debates with lots of substance on issues. I think if the public was exposed to the comp
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the national political parties are pissed because they have do dilute thier funding and not focus on only a few states very early. So the Dems are reacting (IMO appropriately) and saying that if Florida really wants its primary so early we might just not pay attention to it.
That's the problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... why would the democrats even consider this?
Because right a lot of state legislatures and governors in the USA have decided that states with early primaries get too much attention, and they're all moving their primaries up to get attention. The old early primary states are preparing to move their primaries up even further, if need be into 2007. If the part does not stop the race to have the first primary candidates will not be able to spend much time campaigning in individual states, at which point the only way to campaign will be running as much a
Happened before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than that, I don't mind the primary system all that much in the US. Each state has its own particular "flavor" of primaries, and they work rather well.
They aren't the problem...it's the money involved that doesn't give lower-tier candidates (who occasionally make sense) a chance, but I don't want my tax money to go to one of them for their campaign.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or reward turnout (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or reward turnout (Score:4, Insightful)
No. You want the other way around, the least % turnout should go first - it will encourage participation. If the lowest turnout doesn't vote until the decision has already been made, then turnout will be even less next time around. Feedback goes the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of 'concessions' would New Hampshire make to, say, Delaware? A tanker truck full of maple syrup?
(And just in case anyone is curious, here's a breakdown of voter turnout [eac.gov] as percent of population, for the 1996 election. South Dakota pretty much swept it with over 60% of the eligible voting-age population [not even just regist
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Once a larger state like Florida decides (which may represent a total of 27 seats in the electoral college) it pretty much forces a decision for the national party to pick that candidate. This is pretty much the reason why New Hampshire (with its 4 seats) always wants to go first, because if they didn't, their state's opinion on the can
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too late? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think it matters? Letting them tell the public that their vote doesn't matter only changes how they say things, not what they actually do. At this point, only people who the parties WANT to be in the running will be in the running. That only leaves us with a very few people that we can actually vote for, all of which are selected by the same people.
It's a farce and has been for years. This move is just bringing it more into
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's 2007, Bush has been president for 7 years, and will be gone in another year even if not impeached or tossed out, yes, it's too late
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Florida... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...emphasis is wrong...
Democrats vote FOR you!
Early primary IS a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they decide to make themselves king after taking office you'd better hope you've got more support than nuts with RPGs. Like perhaps the courts declaring it to be a ridiculous assertion and derailing his legislation, Congress impeaching him and the Secret Service removing him from the White House. If he has support from the people in power - Congress, chiefs of police, military generals - then a nut with an RPG isn't going to get anything except a bullet in the head when he tries to get past the newly-ins
The reason they're doing this (Score:5, Informative)
Their good (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of 2000, what happened to all that "every vote must be counted" line they kept giving? I can't even say that they only want Democratic votes counted because it looks like they are the only ones being thrown out, and it's Democrats doing it!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Sure This Will Be Popular (Score:2, Insightful)
And isn't Florida the very state they did this insisting about?
For a party promoting their open, inclusive, and ethical values over the opposition, they're not having a very good year of it so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm Sure This Will Be Popular-EXCUSE ME BUT... (Score:2)
Excuse me but, when is a state bound by political party rules? If a state wishes to make themselves more relevant in the primary process -- and face it, currently two tiny states have influence far beyond what is justified by their populations -- sovereignty alone justifies them in enhancing the value of their voters. In fact, I'd say it's incumbent, if not required, of them to do so.
And if the Democratic party doesn't agree -- I'm not hearing the Republicans
Then what? (Score:2)
Well, if nothing else, this will make the conventions interesting and potentially historically significant again, but not necessarily for the reasons the parties will like.
Another possible outcome is that, if Florida's "non-binding" primary vote is ignored, Florida may decide to put forward its own electoral slate, committed to their ori
Oblig. (Score:2)
They should follow party rules (Score:3, Informative)
The party rules are that a state can't hold the primary before February 5. Florida is going to break that rule and the Democrats have to figure out what the penalty should be.
Nice to know (Score:2)
This is "democracy" at work. Then they wonder why there's such apathy and poor turnout among voters. Why vote if it doesn't do anything anyway. To those who choose to believe the lie about how important your vote is - take note. You are now a slave, you just don't know it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether it's binding or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Florida Dems can make the contest non-binding, but the point is moot if coverage of their primary decides the outcome in all the binding contests that happen after the Florida Primary. Unless, of course, Iowa 2008 has already decided the race by then.
Re:It doesn't matter whether it's binding or not. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Floridian and Democrat... (Score:2)
Every vote must count, and especially here where we have so many voting problems.
that shouldn't be a big deal... (Score:2)
Pat Buchanan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sane schedule (Score:2)
Presidential Elections are non-binding too (Score:2)
Democrat primaries are screwed up (Score:2)
I've Never Understood The Primaries (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democratic Party is a private organization. (The same for any political party, it's not just the DNC) It should be up to them to determine -- by their own means and at their own expense -- who their candidate is that they want to promote in the General Election.
Why does the state fund an election cycle which benefits nobody but the political parties?
Why should the state be able to, as it does in many states, tell the Democratic party that "Your sworn enemies, the Republicans, get to vote in determining who you will put up against them in the election"?
Political parties should be able to determine their candidate in whatever fashion they so choose -- intraparty elections, interparty elections, closed-door back-room top-secret stategy-meeting decisions, randomly chosen powerball winner, whatever they want . The only people who really should have any say are the members of the political party in question (and even then, in accordance with their own organization charter, etc., etc.)
But certainly this is not a matter that the government should be involved in at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
Re: (Score:2)
Quote from a famous autocrat (Score:2)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simultaneous Primaries are the Only Answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. If the primaries are all on the same day, a candidate zeroing in on the primary can't speak to Florida's concerns or North Dakota's concerns. He has to speak to the lowest-common-denominator concerns across the nation. Spreading the primaries apart encourages candidates to get to know something about each of the states they hope to represent so that they can focus their message for the folks in those states.
2. Holding the primaries the same day encourages candidate
Higher than 50-50 (Score:2)
I know what he meant: that it is more than likely than not that the primary will be non-binding. That is to say, the non-binding part has a more than 50% chance of becoming reality.
However, for the daily dose of pedantry, I first read that quotation and thought "What? Much higher than 50-50? Like 100-10
The states are playing Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:4, Insightful)
However it's in any individual state's interest to moveits primary ahead.
Flordia is a large state; placing its primary shortly after NH tilts the game in favor of early money raising. NH makes or breaks many candidates, but if FL is right after NH then the election is over for many candidates before a single vote is cast.
Personally, I think the primaries should be structured so that (1) relatively unknown candidates with relatively small war chests have a chance and (2) they produce competitive races up until the last primary vote is cast.
Think of it as a design problem. How would you design a system that meets those criteria?
Re:They call themselves Democrats with a Capital " (Score:2)
The way primaries are handled varies from state to state. Personally I think that only members of a party should ever be eligible to vote in that party's primary. You could register as the other party in order to [help] sabotage their primary, but then you wouldn't be eligible to vote in your primary, and your party would look weak and since the world operates not on reality but on the perception of reality, it would become weak, and thus i
Re:They call themselves Democrats with a Capital " (Score:2)
Re:They call themselves Democrats with a Capital " (Score:2)
changed the date, and the democrats are reacting to that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It actually means that after a trial run at fixing elections with electronic voting machines it now means that Florida is giving up on the pretense of being a democracy.
Thank god for improvements in "Truth in Government".
Re:I guess that means... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all about control. Florida (like many states) is trying to move the primaries earlier so that Florida has a larger say in who the nominees for each party are. Of course its an arms race no state can win 'cause other states will simply move it even earlier. The entire attempt is foolish, but not anti-democratic.
The party bosses (of both parties) don't want a "new" guy they can't control to get early buzz from a primary without other coverage. They want it to be "non-binding" so the party power owners can make their deals and get their guy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real point is not the idiocy of moving the primary, but that the powers in the parties themselves don't like States to do that and so the parties themselves are talking about making more primaries "advisory". People think they will have a voice in choosing a nominee, but the parties themselves will do the choosing.
Pay attention to how many "at large" voting delegates go to each parties convention who are NOT chosen by
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The major parties entered a devils agreement with the States. The State agreed to pay for the whole thing in exchange for their making rules. Rules like "Open Primaries" where people from one party could legally vote in another parties primary. Or when the date of the primary is. The parties have allowed the government to have a large voice in who they run for office. Huge conflict of
Re: (Score:2)
This is the (private) party. They're not technically part of the government, which I guess means they can do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't tick off enough people to lose the next election.
s/Congress/Electoral College/
That wa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the real topic...
THIS IS A PRIMARY. The different parties are companies, they are run like such and completely exist as such. The democrat party can chose whatever it wants to do for how it will decide it's can