The 2016 US American Election Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

That certainly isn't what democracy is. Demcracy is supposed to be a reflection of the people's will with each person having the same influence.

There's an argument to be had there, though. Given the size of the undertaking and the complexity of modern government, why not value the input of those most engaged over those who don't particularly care or know what's going on?

In other words, take into account the current landscape and how society looks now, and try to explain why your view of what democracy is supposed to be is actually good.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Seems pretty simple to me:

Mandate that political elections by any party within the state are to be held on the same day, then declare what day that will be, and then declare that day as a state holiday.

On the national level, make the federal election day a national holiday.

you're talking about a party that wants to make it difficult to vote, won't raise the minimum wage or give women mat leave. An election day holiday? forget it.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's an argument to be had there, though. Given the size of the undertaking and the complexity of modern government, why not value the input of those most engaged over those who don't particularly care or know what's going on?

In other words, take into account the current landscape and how society looks now, and try to explain why your view of what democracy is supposed to be is actually good.

i think that's a bit dangerous. in a democracy my vote is the the same as your vote, even if i don't care.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's an argument to be had there, though. Given the size of the undertaking and the complexity of modern government, why not value the input of those most engaged over those who don't particularly care or know what's going on?

In other words, take into account the current landscape and how society looks now, and try to explain why your view of what democracy is supposed to be is actually good.

Because being engaged doesn't necessarily mean that they "know what's going on". Plus there's pretty much no reasonable way to do this without voting tests, which I believe are unconstitutional. Plus it's really the most passionate people who caucus, not the most engaged.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GGG

Demcracy is supposed to be a reflection of the people's will with each person having the same influence.

And, in regards to caucuses, everyone who shows up does have the same influence.

Originally Posted by GGG

You seem to be arguing that people who are more involved deserve to have more influence.

Well, I'm not sure that I am arguing that point, but...

If, for example, you wanted a road in your neighborhood paved, what do you think would accomplish that goal more effectively: Going to city council daily and pressing your case publicly (and enlisting others to do the same), or just casually emailing your request to your councilperson (and enlisting others to do the same)?

Originally Posted by GGG

It also effectively leads to trump a small vocal minority is able to highjeack the silent majority.

Why should any effort be spent in trying to listen to a "silent" anything---majority or minority? They are silent, and thus they aren't saying anything to listen to any way. If a "silent" group wishes to be heard, then they need to speak up and, you know, stop being silent.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations…These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: "A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election." Comey's position, this official said, was "if it is said, it shouldn't come from the FBI, which as you'll recall it did not."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-...ng-source.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Because being engaged doesn't necessarily mean that they "know what's going on". Plus there's pretty much no reasonable way to do this without voting tests, which I believe are unconstitutional. Plus it's really the most passionate people who caucus, not the most engaged.

Those are good counter-arguments, for sure, except the "it's unconstitutional" part, since this is a debate that would have to be had in the abstract.

I also agree that it's potentially dangerous to go about altering the foundations of the system of government. But in light of how badly things are going, one wonders if there isn't some tweaking that needs to happen. The first stage is pretty clearly (in my opinion) what Obama is looking to do, plus some serious campaign finance reform, and other measures to diminish the extent to which elected officials' job is "getting elected again" rather than actually governing. But some more fundamental changes may be called for, and a discussion of what they might be is worth having, I think.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

i think that's a bit dangerous. in a democracy my vote is the the same as your vote, even if i don't care.

And you don't think that's dangerous?

[PsYcNeT]

So wait is elitism bad or good?

This thread is veering all over the place.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So wait is elitism bad or good?

This thread is veering all over the place.

Bad, when it's other people who think they're better than me.
Good, when I'm among the elite.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's an argument to be had there, though. Given the size of the undertaking and the complexity of modern government, why not value the input of those most engaged over those who don't particularly care or know what's going on?

I sympathize with this idea, but in practice this hugely favours those already privileged by the society. They generally have more ability to participate in politics as they have more control over their lives (both work and private).

To put it in a very simple way, it's much easier to be active in politics if you can afford a nanny and a cleaning service.

[nfotiu]

Without getting into the weeds of how all the mechanisms work, I think that things like Super delegates and caucuses to a decent job of giving the party leaders, elders, establishment... whatever you want to call them, influence in picking the party's candidate. I think it showed itself to work well when they originally backed Clinton, but were persuaded by the more general population to move to Obama. And I think it showed itself to work well this time around when Bernie's platform was just too far off of moderate to really stand a chance of winning a general election. Although I'm sure it's full of corruption and all sorts of nastiness, I think the system worked ok for picking the Democratic candidate most likely to win.

On the other hand, party leaders do not seem to have nearly the say in the Republican candidates, and they end up with a terrible, grass roots/social media/reality tv generated candidate. If the party leaders had more say, they would have surely come up with someone with a better chance to win, and hopefully someone more qualified to be president.

[Drak]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-...7Ceveningbrief

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

[direwolf]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...consult-230519

Poll: Comey’s bombshell changes few votes.

Hillary Clinton has a slim three-point lead over Donald Trump one week before Election Day, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted entirely after FBI Director James Comey announced the discovery of new emails that might pertain to the former secretary of state's private server.

Clinton leads Trump 46 percent to 43 percent in a two-way race, and 42 percent to 39 percent in a four-way race, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 7 percent and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at 5 percent.

"It is unlikely that there will be a dramatic shift in the polls before Election Day," said Morning Consult cofounder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp. "While Friday's news may be considered an 'October Surprise,' it doesn't seem to be moving the needle as of now."

[photon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

In a way that's what we want. The Alberta PC Leadership nomination is this way or else it would be elitist. Is ranking candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th place on a ballot any better?

At least runoffs you end up with a candidate that the majority supports, which isn't great itself but at least is better than a candidate that only 30% supported.

The thing about democracy and voting is people suck, and idea that a general populace has the tools and information to make a good decision on almost any issue or candidate at all is laughable. Just look at the the interaction with the news and polling... These additional emails come out and it's wall to wall coverage, and the big question isn't the actual issue (which in this case it can't be because there was zero information) it's how will these issues impact the polls. Presidential debate performances are analyzed to the nth degree and a look at a watch or a cough can shift the polls.

That's because humans by default don't make decisions based on rational reasons, we make decisions for much deeper and simpler reasons and then come up with logical reasons to rationalize them. It takes effort to do otherwise.

That's not a formula for good decision making. The alternatives are worse though, so there's not much can be done.

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

I mean when one of the most conservative members of Congress (Jim Jordan) questions the action...

[photon]

Where's the positive stories from the Wikileaks emails?

[Looch City]

Great, one more immigrant.

Now there'll be 679,999,999 more coming...

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So wait is elitism bad or good?

This thread is veering all over the place.

I'm actually a pretty big fan of elitism. A lot of people are dumb and probably shouldn't vote. IF we could somehow make our elites benevolent I think that would be ideal instead of using their status to only elevate themselves.

[Hemi-Cuda]

So the current DNC chairwoman was caught sharing debate question with the Clinton campaign prior to the actual primary debate

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...brazile-230534

I can definitely see why the Bernie supporters are pissed, it's pretty clear that the DNC colluded heavily with Hillary and wanted no part in any other candidate receiving attention

[photon]

Hey if Trump can do it...

U.S. Sen. Richard Burr’s re-election campaign is refusing to provide The News & Observer with details of his campaign schedule, effectively limiting the newspaper from reporting on Burr’s public appearances.

Burr spokesman Jesse Hunt said concerns with The N&O’s coverage of the race have prompted the campaign to ban the paper from receiving event information.

“Paul (Shumaker, Burr’s lead political strategist) put an embargo on sending you scheduling details until you demonstrate the ability to cover this race from a balanced point of view,” Hunt said in an email.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/pol...111595167.html

----

ETA: Ugh, robocalls in Utah trying to get people to support Trump instead of McMullin (they're not approved by or paid for by the Trump campaign):

My name is William Johnson. I am a farmer and a white nationalist. I make this call against Evan McMullin and in support of Donald Trump.

Evan McMullin is an open borders amnesty supporter.

Evan has two mommies. His mother is a lesbian, married to another woman. Evan is okay with that. Indeed Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Evan is over 40 years old and is not married and doesn’t even have a girlfriend. I believe Evan is a closet homosexual.

Don’t vote for Evan McMullin. Vote for Donald Trump. He will respect all women and be a president we can all be proud of.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-robocall-utah