Confidence in Elections Waning

[dblack]

Russia meddled in our election in 2016. It's a fact.

Yep. They've been doing that since I was in college (early eighties). I buddied up to a guy who was actually paid to distribute Russian propaganda in the lead up to the '84 election. He used to show up at the punk shows and recruit disaffected youth. I started going to his meetings, just to watch the lunacy. But I started asking the wrong questions and was asked to leave.

 

[g5000]

It is a perception, I don't think what Georgia is doing is hurting anything but feelings.

Uh, when actual laws are being changed, that is not a perception. It is reality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yep. And every election has anomalies and irregularities. But we latch on to whatever will justify our delusions.



MOAR AUDITS!!!!

One we CAN control, the other we can NOT.
But I digress, some have problems with cheating while some don't.

What's new

 

[colfax_m]

Yep. They've been doing that since I was in college (early eighties). I buddied up to a guy who was actually paid to distribute Russian propaganda in the lead up to the '84 election. He used to show up at the punk shows and recruit disaffected youth. I started going to his meetings, just to watch the lunacy. But I started asking the wrong questions and was asked to leave.

Cool story bro.

How did Russia intervene in our election in 2008?

 

[dblack]

Cool story bro.

How did Russia intervene in our election in 2008?

Beats me. Once again, you're missing the point. You're invested in the idea that this (everything?) is partisan issue and Republicans are the bad guys. I'm saying that the partisans, on both sides, are the bad guys. And that the system driving such idiotic partisanship is the core of the problem.

 

[colfax_m]

Beats me. Once again, you're missing the point. You're invested in the idea that this (everything?) is partisan issue and Republicans are the bad guys. I'm saying that the partisans, on both sides, are the bad guys. And that the system driving such idiotic partisanship is the core of the problem.

Gotcha.

I have no need for false equivalencies. One side complains about something real. One side invented something to complain about.

If you see that as the same thing, it’s your problem. Not mine.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what that means. You like RCV? or the opposite?

I pass on Ranked Choice Voting. Someone who wasn't the majority of persons who voted's first choice shouldn't be elected to anything. Talk about the lesser of two evils.

I agree with you that we elect far right and far left hacks and was illustrating why far left and far right hacks are elected.

 

[SweetTea]

Safeguard or manipulate?

Safeguard. Manipulation is where Democrats excel.

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh, when actual laws are being changed, that is not a perception. It is reality.

The laws will help voter integrity, not harm it.

 

[dblack]

Gotcha.

I have no need for false equivalencies. One side complains about something real. One side invented something to complain about.

If you see that as the same thing, it’s your problem. Not mine.

It sounds like you still don't understand why I see it as the "same thing". The part that's the same isn't the particulars of the claims. It's the passionate denial exhibited. And that's because of the extreme hatred and fear that our system promoted by the two-party system.

 

[dblack]

I pass on Ranked Choice Voting. Someone who wasn't the majority of persons who voted's first choice shouldn't be elected to anything. Talk about the lesser of two evils.

Ahhh... thought you might actually be in favor of positive reform. Shoulda known better. It would undermine the partisan pissing matching you so enjoy.

I agree with you that we elect far right and far left hacks and was illustrating why far left and far right hacks are elected.

RCV would help solve that problem.

 

[JLW]

All major nations meddle in the elections of other nations ya moron. What Russia was doing IS NOTHING NEW. Or are you going to pretend we don't do the exact same shit???

You people are fools. The congress blew untold THOUSANDS to investigate what everyone already knows. They might as well have given that money to a college to investigate why dogs can't drive cars...

I guess were asleep at the switch when the Senate approved sanctions in 2017 against Russia for meddling in our elections in 2016. I guess you are also unaware that those sanctions had a provision they could not be waived by Trump.

No, what Russia did in 2016 was far different than any other past election interference.

I guess it is fitting that don't give a damn about foreign interference in our election system because you likewise support a pernicious lie about voter fraud that is also aimed at undermining our election integrity.

You are consistent.

 

[candycorn]

Ahhh... thought you might actually be in favor of positive reform. Shoulda known better. It would undermine the partisan pissing matching you so enjoy.

Are you sure there would be no more "evil" candidates? You've got to watch out for "evil" people...the same way one has to guard against slender man and Keyser Soze.

RCV would help solve that problem.

Sure...explain how this will get rid of partisanship. Feel free. Use the 2016 republican primary as an example.

 

[candycorn]

All major nations meddle in the elections of other nations ya moron. What Russia was doing IS NOTHING NEW. Or are you going to pretend we don't do the exact same shit???

Please tell us another time when Russia hacked the e-mails of one political party in a Presidential election and then published those e-mails.

 

[candycorn]

For many decades now I've thought it is a conflict of interest that the vast majority of our elections in this country are run under the supervision of Democrats and Republicans. My way to deal with the matter is to vote to boot the ruling political party from power before it gets too cute and comfy.

That the States have outsourced the elections to the political parties is a great incubator for party bosses pulling strings and whatnot. True.

I'm not sure it's a conflict of interest insofar as if the GOP primary has GOP voters voting in it...there is no disenfranchisement that takes place.

Of course, what happened in 2020 with Biden and multiple contenders pulling out nearly simultaneously is pretty much a textbook case of what I'm talking about. Someone, somewhere, had a meeting with Buttieg (sp?) and Amy Klobuchar and explained what their prospects would be going forward if they stayed in the race.

 

[colfax_m]

Safeguard. Manipulation is where Democrats excel.

Pretty laughable given the stunts Trump and his cronies tried to pull.

 

[colfax_m]

It sounds like you still don't understand why I see it as the "same thing". The part that's the same isn't the particulars of the claims. It's the passionate denial exhibited. And that's because of the extreme hatred and fear that our system promoted by the two-party system.

Why would you take issue with a “passionate denial” if it was based on a legitimate premise?

 

[dblack]

Are you sure there would be no more "evil" candidates? You've got to watch out for "evil" people...the same way one has to guard against slender man and Keyser Soze.

You get fixated on the weirdest things. The "second most evil" line is a reference to the "lesser-of-two-evils" voting strategy. Not an actual claim that someone is evil. I'll try to spell things out more simply for you in the future.

Sure...explain how this will get rid of partisanship. Feel free. Use the 2016 republican primary as an example.

Be happy to.

First of all, let's dispense with your strawman - I never said it would "get rid" of partisanship. But it will mitigate it, and stop rewarding candidates for being so partisan. The most obvious change with RCV is that it allows to people vote third party without "throwing away" their vote. So, if you think the Green party candidate is actually best, but you still prefer Biden over Trump, you rank Green #1, Biden #2, and Trump last - or not ranked at all (same effect). Ranked that way, in the likely event that the Green party candidate doesn't get enough first place votes to win, your vote would go to Biden instead. Under RCV, you can vote Green - and have your vote on the record supporting Greens as your first choice, yet still vote "against" Trump by ranking him last.

The more subtle change is how it would impact campaigning. It gives candidates more of an incentive to address the concerns of all voters, not just their base. A candidate can win by scoring more second place votes. They have a built in incentive to avoid alienating voters who might rank them second place.

As far as historical examples, you cited the 2016 republican primaries: Especially early on in the process, most Republican primary voters opposed Trump, many of them bitterly. But the field was so crowded that their votes were dispersed among the other candidates and Trump was able to do well regardless. Under RCV he'd not have fared so well. If most of the voters in and RCV election rank you last, you won't win. Period. Trump would almost certainly not have been the Republican nominee using RCV.

Another example would be Bush/Gore debacle. Many experts claimed, then and now, that GW won because Nader split Democrat votes. As close as it was, RCV would likely have given the victory to Gore.

On the flip side, Bill Clinton probably won in '92 because Perot did something similar to the Republicans. RCV would have most likely given that one to Bush senior.

Finally, under RCV third party candidates will actually get a real idea of what kind of public support they have, and more of them are likely to run. More ideas and perspectives, in my view anyway, is better than less.

 

[dblack]

Why would you take issue with a “passionate denial” if it was based on a legitimate premise?

You still don't get it. I'm not taking issue with the specifics of either denial - I'm just observing the irrational beliefs that both parties promote, that the other side is evil incarnate and cannot be tolerated.

 

[candycorn]

You get fixated on the weirdest things. The "second most evil" line is a reference to the "lesser-of-two-evils" voting strategy. Not an actual claim that someone is evil. I'll try to spell things out more simply for you in the future.

Most people who are attempting to have a serious discussion can refrain from calling someone "evil".