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
Fair enough, still a way to differentiate a "didn't vote on that part of the ballot because I don't care" from a "didn't vote on that part of the ballot because I refuse to give any candidate my vote and feel none of them are good enough" would be good.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOnly if the "no candidate is good enough" option had a chance to cause the election to be tossed out. Otherwise it's exactly the same as staying home, save for a cathartic feeling of venting one's outrage at the system.
edited 1st Sep '15 1:52:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It would change the way campaigns worked, if politicians suddenly realised that there was a large chunk of the electorate fed up with everybody, but willing to go to the polls, they might try and win their votes. If nothing else knowing that there's that sized chunk of the "you both suck" vote our there might well cause a "you both suck" candidate to run.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI feel like that would fall flat against the hard-edged cynicism of such voters. I mean, why should they vote for someone who's clearly pandering to their demographic and has no real chance to win?
Never mind that the hardcore cynics are distributed both left and right, so you'd never get them all anyway. Trump has found that particular niche on the Republican side, and I would dare say that no disaffected would-be Democrat would give him the time of day.
edited 1st Sep '15 2:20:00 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Maybe. If I was a candidate, and a lot of "you both suck" votes, I would just shrug them off as Hate Dumb (since they wasted time and energy just to insult everyone or appear "edgy").
edited 1st Sep '15 2:18:34 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34
It wouldn't be an actual "you both suck" option, but simply a "none of the above" one.
To make their voice heard? You'd be surprised at what people will vote for given the chance, over here we have a party that's ideology is literally "satire"[1]
, they hold 7 local council seats and got 3,898 votes at the last election. Protest votes can gain a lot of steam if given the chance.
There is a large component of all electorates that just don't care about policy, or perhaps figure that if they did care about policy, it wouldn't make any difference. This component responds to rhetorical flare, if they respond at all. Hence Trump.
So maybe the time has come to start qualifying the voters, rather than explaining/arguing policy before a deaf audience.
Of course, getting the idea of a "Qualified Voter" going would hit some pretty mean opposition, it being a challenge to the idea that all voters are equal.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Menckenedited 1st Sep '15 3:25:24 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThat's not true. I'm not even talking about voting supression, I'm talking about striping the right to vote from felonies and parolees. Whether you agree with it or not that that is something states are allowed to do proves it's not viewed as a right to all citizens.
edited 1st Sep '15 3:31:48 PM by LSBK
![]()
What you're talking about us actually used in the U.S. as a form of active voter suppression. Because poor, and minorities are often targeted by police tactics that take away their voting rights without giving them the ability to fight back. Often times for things that wouldn't even get more affluent or white people more than a slap on the wrist if that.
Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's not voter suppression.
edited 1st Sep '15 3:37:53 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
I believe that in some states once you're convicted of a felony you lose the right to vote permanently, ever after parole. though I could be wrong.
This has been a big thing in other places, there's been a serious argument made for it being a breach of human rights to have a blanket denial of the right to vote to people in prison. Obviously with some crimes it makes sense to lose the right to vote, but a general ban on all prisoners not being able to vote has been argued against seriously.
edited 1st Sep '15 3:44:52 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIndeed. Not being able to vote while in prison for a felony is one thing (and something that's arguable), but not being allowed to vote once you are free is a gross violation of human rights. There might be classes of crime that legitimately support the idea of stripping away the benefits of citizenship, but dealing marijuana ain't on that list.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said. “What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective.”

While that aspect is true, local ordinances can vary when it comes to what makes a ballot "spoiled" - as was pointed out, not entering anything in one column could make it such.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"