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
It's irrelevant on the Democrats' side since there are only two candidates, unless a brokered convention goes nuts and nominates Warren or something like that. But it's hard to see how a brokered convention could happen given that, mathematically, a winner must arise from the first ballot.
edited 26th Apr '16 8:39:50 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I am guessing, in Pennsylvania both Hillary and Sanders need to offer a list of delegates and the "tickets" (=Pennsylvanian delegates that will be sent to the National Convention) are distributed in accordance to vote share. Which of the offered delegates are actually sent is determined by a priority list, in accordance to the numbers of votes each delegate candidate receives.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThat makes a certain amount of sense, even if it seems unnecessarily complicated.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Switzerland does use the same system to nominate lawmakers and distribute them among parties. I did also need help from my parents when I first participated in a legislative election, it is not a simple system.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAfter watching some John Oliver I must ask: who the fuck thought it's still a good idea to elect judges?
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
Well, judges are elected indirectly anyway by requiring legislative confirmation. You can't remove the people from the process entirely, and the people can be bought.
![]()
![]()
You mean the D'Hondt method
for allocating seats in a PR Election?
edited 26th Apr '16 8:47:08 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
Dude, I'd take the way we have here, not transparent and prone to shady deals as it is, over what you guys over there, because here at least the judges don't have to shake lawyers down for campaign elections or be the target of attack ads. It's just wrong.
That's just an example, of course, but you can see why people would want influence over that sort of thing (especially given that there's not much in the way of separation of powers at the local level). At higher levels, where separation of powers is more prominent and judicial decisions are more important, judges generally are appointed rather than elected.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
The problem is that it also leads to such things like this,
which is patently insane.
That has more to do with the conflict between federal and state law and the belief that some states hold that state government should hold more power than Washington.
Because, see, it's not just about being bigoted. It's about state's rights. Specifically, the state's self-imposed "right" to ignore federal law and go right on being bigoted despite a Supreme Court ruling saying, "No, seriously, you have to cut that shit out."
Which is almost always what people are talking about when they discuss "state's rights". The federal government is getting more and more progressive and some states want their government to be able to function as a bulkhead to shield them from progressive decisions and/or lawmaking.
Which is an argument we've literally been having for over a century and a half. People have died over this.
edited 26th Apr '16 10:38:47 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Might as well go secede because if the states can just ignore the Federal judiciary, the Federal judiciary is a waste of time and money.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.Wait, don't you have "federal law trumps state law" over there?
We learn from history that we do not learn from history![]()
AFAICT they have it, but the Republicans (or some of them, anyway) don't like it.
Pretty much.
The state has no legal ground to stand on by ignoring federal ruling. That they're doing it anyway just demonstrates the utter disdain some states have for the federal government telling them they have to quit being bigoted. It's no coincidence that Alabama is one of the states that we literally had to fight a war against over the issue of the federal government telling them they had to set their slaves free.
The American Civil War never ended. It just became more passive-aggressive.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.In addition, the Supreme Court also ruled that secession is unconstitutional because while superseded by the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation are referenced by the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, was to form a more perfect Union compared to the Articles of Confederation, which was written to form a perpetual Union. Naturally, this was ruled after the American Civil War in response to it.
edited 26th Apr '16 11:27:01 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Jovian: Thing is, "let's solve homelessness by putting all the homeless people in jail" is going to be popular in a lot of parts of the country. Elected judges may be forced to cooperate with that or get voted out. If they're civil servants, it's much harder for legislators to get rid of them.
And if judges are elected by the people, they'll pass the sentences that the people want instead of the sentences that the law requires. That means judges get elected by being "tough on crime," just like district attorneys. All of these offices need to be as insulated as possible from public pressure if they're going to put justice first (especially because when discretion is required, usually it's better to err on the side of mercy).
Alaska uses a hybrid system where judges are nominated by the Judicial Council (which is itself a hybrid group - three attorneys chosen by the bar, three non-attorneys picked by the governor with legislative approval, and the chief justice), appointed by the governor from the Council's picks, and each election includes a recall option from the voters with advice from the Judicial Council, which seems to prevent a lot of America's Craziest Judges crap from happening up here.

It would matter because if Sanders (or say Kasich) drop out their delegates need to support someone. By voting on the delegates you can control who that someone will be.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman