What kind of bump would a new candidate get? Let's say somehow they get Trump to drop out. There's no way this was planned as too much was unpredictable, but it's not unlike a rapid rebuild of a hockey team. There's likable candidates on the Republican side, but the primaries bring out the worst. This could be a rapid rebranding and a new one might have a better chance than Hillary
Possible that there's some bump, but at the same time there's a lot of independent Trump support that might just stay home if given a choice of Clinton and a generic republican. Where to do they go? Do they get someone who shares Trump's Muslim ban, build a wall sort of rhetoric, but without the crazy media appeal of Trump? Or do they get a more traditional right-wing, small government, christian values, corporation-friendly candidate (who Trump supporters would probably hate). Pick an establishment guy (like Ryan), and Trump supporters probably latch on to the conspiracy theory that Trump was forced out so that candidate X could run. Pick another outsider, and you probably still lose some of that Trump support, plus give yourself little chance of winning back those moderates. Plus, whoever it is, Trump is going to spend the rest of the election tweeting snide, passive-aggressive things at that person.
I just don't see the upside in that for the Republicans. I think their best play is to just let in play out, and then if he fails to make any headway by the debates, other Republicans will start rejecting him more publicly and vocally, so that long term they've disassociated themselves with him.
It just seems obvious - how else are you going to make sure that some ardent supporter doesn't just go to ten polling places and claim to be ten different people so as to vote ten different times? Look at how dedicated the Bernie people are to him winning (and the fact that none of them have jobs so have enough free time to pull it off lolol)... do you think it's beyond them to engage in that sort of behaviour?
In practice, though, this simply does not happen. It's a red herring, a hypothetical problem that seems plausible but never materializes anywhere.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It just seems obvious - how else are you going to make sure that some ardent supporter doesn't just go to ten polling places and claim to be ten different people so as to vote ten different times? Look at how dedicated the Bernie people are to him winning (and the fact that none of them have jobs so have enough free time to pull it off lolol)... do you think it's beyond them to engage in that sort of behaviour?
In practice, though, this simply does not happen.
I understand the intuitive reason. It's just not a logical reason.
It just seems obvious - how else are you going to make sure that some ardent supporter doesn't just go to ten polling places and claim to be ten different people so as to vote ten different times? Look at how dedicated the Bernie people are to him winning (and the fact that none of them have jobs so have enough free time to pull it off lolol)... do you think it's beyond them to engage in that sort of behaviour?
In practice, though, this simply does not happen. It's a red herring, a hypothetical problem that seems plausible but never materializes anywhere.
The reason people don't do that is the risk of getting caught is big. How do you find ten people you know aren't voting?
The reason people don't do that is the risk of getting caught is big. How do you find ten people you know aren't voting?
Actually, it wouldn't be hard to find ten people you know aren't voting, given the rate of eligible voter turnout. And realistically, they can be voting, and you'd just have to get there before they do. Most people vote after work.
But I do agree to some extent; think it's a combination of deterrence, effort required and lack of upside. Voting can take hours, and it's not worth even a minimal risk and a lot of effort to vote a couple of extra times; you're not increasing your candidate's chances of winning all that much and there's no real reward in it for you personally.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Of all the amazing quotes from the DNC from the Obamas, Biden, Bloomberg, Khan, Allen, etc the most enduring quote is Hillary's "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons".
Of all the amazing quotes from the DNC from the Obamas, Biden, Bloomberg, Khan, Allen, etc the most enduring quote is Hillary's "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons".
Really sad.
Former missile silo operator slams Trump in 20 devastating tweets
Requiring photo id seems like pretty basic criteria for allowing someone to cast a vote.
Provided the state has the obligation to provide the ID for free with absolutely no barriers, you want photo ID you call the goverment and they send a guy over who interviews you, takes what ID you have and prints out the photo ID there and then.
The right to vote is the single foundation of democracy, has functioned without issue for long before photos existed, if the state wishes to place conditions on how a citizen votes it has an absolute moral obligation to make sure no citizen is denied their basic right to enfranchisement.
Personally I think the states should be on the hook financially, if someone ends up not being able to vote when they should be able to the state should owe them thirty grand or so
Yes, Yuval has done an excellent job at putting all of the disparate pieces of this discussion into an easily accessible form. Out of all of the books I recommended, this is the one that people should read.
