Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
edited 29th Dec '12 9:12:56 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The Dems really need to improve their state game if they don't want to keep electing Presidents beholden to Repubican Congresses. Get into the governorships, the state legislatures, undo all that gerrymandering.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
Each district within a state has to have the same number of people in it, though, and you're not going to get that to happen without giving districts some irregularly shaped borders.
If you want to get rid of gerrymandering, I still say we should just let redistricting be decided by computers.
While it makes sense, I still don't like the idea of political parties having an official role in government.
edited 29th Dec '12 9:57:19 PM by RavenWilder
@Raven - Yeah, I know what you mean, but it's the best solution I've seen to the problem. At least it would slightly reduce the advantage of the major parties.
Actually, I kind of feel that the concept of districts itself is becoming obsolete. Peoples' interests aren't defined by which part of a state they live in as much as they used to be.
Raven, they already have an official role, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Otherwise the parties in this country wouldn't have caucuses or raise such a fuss over picking a candidate that they think best represents their party's values and interests. Hell, they hold an official position in politics simply because people choose to be members of them and then seek political office.
Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it would demolish freedom of assembly, I'd support banning political parties altogether. While that's clearly unfeasible, the least we could do is remove political parties and candidates' names from ballots and require all politicians be elected by write-in vote.
We already have write in vote, in that people have a space to write in the name of anyone they like that's not on the list. And it's really not practical to vote for someone who isn't actively running for an elected position. At least for the presidency. I don't see how you've suggested anything more efficient and freedom giving.
Also, it's impractical not because it violates freedom of assembly, but because people naturally gather in clusters with people who share their particular values, regardless of whatever rules are in action. You would be trying to subvert human nature. This is why Washington's warning against political parties failed.
People will always cluster together based on shared beliefs, but that's not the problem. What I've got a problem with is party loyalty, where people vote a certain way, not because they reached that conclusion on their own, but because the party they're affiliated with said that's how they should vote. I doubt many people agree with everything their party does, but so long as they agree with their party on most things, there's a lot of pressure to support the other stuff they do as well (a.k.a. towing the party line).
My hope is that, if we made ballots write-in vote only, party solidarity would be weakened. A lot of voters don't do much research on candidates before going to the polls; they just look at the names on the ballot and vote for whoever's been endorsed by a certain party. But if ballots don't mention candidates or parties by name, then someone can only get elected if voters actually know who they are. I'm not saying everyone would do in-depth research before voting, but if they have to look up who's running for office, they're likely to come across a little more info on the candidates than just their names and party affiliations. This would make being a memorable candidate a little more important and being in a party's good graces a little less.
edited 30th Dec '12 12:57:22 AM by RavenWilder
I fell sorry for the people who will have to read all the bad handwriting and spelling errors.
And for any politician with a long name or a hard to spell name.
edited 30th Dec '12 1:34:07 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016^
0% Approval Rating? And what would happen if Approval Rating of Congress hits the single figures? Can the American Constitution deal with that situation?
edited 30th Dec '12 2:54:12 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWhen it comes to congress members, I don't think it's possible to get rid of both political parties and gerrymandering: Proportional representation implies a political party (or at least candidate lists) rather than individuals.
However, for the presidential election there's little excuse. From what I've read in wikipedia, members of the Electoral College have the sole function of voting for whomever they promised to. This leads to gerrymandering in an election supposed to elect one guy. Add to that the winner-takes-all grouping by most states, and you've got two layers of indirect vote (which would lead to two layers of gerrymandering if state boundaries could be rearranged easily).
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

10 rounds isn't high capacity. It's standard for smaller pistols. Standard capacity is 30 in most long guns. Such silly and pointless legislation. I shall write my congress person!
Fight smart, not fair.