TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122426: May 15th 2016 at 7:48:47 AM

[up] Fair under the rules which are designed to make it extremely difficult for someone who isn't in favor with the party bosses to win, but they won without breaking their own rules, so you can say that much for the DNC.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#122427: May 15th 2016 at 7:56:06 AM

Speaking of DNC shenanigans, the Delegate convention in Nevada got chaotic as hell due to a last-minute rules switch and reports that 58 Sanders delegatesnote  were excluded from the convention entirely for "administrative reasons" without being given a chance to contest the ruling. It got to the point that 20 local sheriffs were called in to escort Sanders supporters out of the building - given they were considering a sit-in at the hotel (which likely has no official affiliation with the DNC), the supporters were in the wrong on that particular idea, but as others have said...

This fucking election.

Edit: here's a decidedly more dispassionate link regarding the hullabaloo at the Nevada convention.

edited 15th May '16 8:06:44 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#122428: May 15th 2016 at 9:44:11 AM

Objectively the EC is still biased towards the GOP since voters in Wyoming and Alaska are better-represented in there, proportionately, than ones in New York or Washington.
You realize that there are a bunch of small blue states, too, right? Like Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire?

Fair under the rules which are designed to make it extremely difficult for someone who isn't in favor with the party bosses to win
Clinton won under almost any criteria you can think of. Most delegates, obviously. Most delegates minus superdelegates, she still wins. Most states, still Clinton. Most votes overall, as if it were a straight nationwide popular vote, still Clinton. There's pretty much no way you can look at the national primary results and say "see, if it was done fairly, Sanders would win!". The only way for Sanders to win is if you exclude large portions of the country simply because they voted for Clinton.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#122429: May 15th 2016 at 9:51:53 AM

It wasn't as biased against Sanders as all that. What the convention did was return the vote share to better reflect the popular vote after it had gotten distorted at the district-level caucus.

The further this goes along, the less i like Sanders.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#122430: May 15th 2016 at 10:03:54 AM

[up]

In fairness, Sanders himself had nothing to do with either oddity, nor did Clinton. And I'd actually take worse exception to the idea of "We have to reflect the popular vote" as opposed to the reasons they DQ'd 58 delegates, as that's what led to a number of complaints in other States, where the hand-count was "fixed" to reflect the auto-count. I can't recall which State, but I know I linked to a youtube vid of the person complaining to the election committee there when it happened - I want to say Illinois, but memory fails me.

edited 15th May '16 10:06:45 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122431: May 15th 2016 at 11:43:10 AM

@Jovian: I'm specifically referring to the fact that primaries are allowed to be closed despite being publicly funded, which is something that more less flies in the face of the notion that the parties are private organizations that can run themselves however they want. The reality is that both of the parties are apparatuses of the state in the same way as in a One-Party state like Russia or China.

Obviously the fact that there's two of them is a fairly significant difference, but due to the design of the American political system, it's more or less impossible for legislature to pass unless the ideological gap between the parties is extremely small, or one party holds all political power at the federal level. You could almost call it a "One and a Half Party State"

The whole "the two parties are basically the same" meme more or less has to hold true in order to avoid deadlocks in our system, which would be an acceptable price to pay for a more stable form of government, were that only the case. At best, there's little to no difference in the long term stability of Presidential democracy as it is practiced in America and parliamentary democracies, and there's even some political scientists who argue presidential systems are inherently less stable than parliamentary systems.

I just really don't see the point of having a system that's as rigid as ours when there's no significant evidence that it offers any benefits over more mutable alternatives.

edited 15th May '16 11:59:24 AM by CaptainCapsase

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#122432: May 15th 2016 at 11:51:52 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no actual fee involved with registering as a member of a political party, right? In which case, being able to vote in a given primary is simply a matter of having filed the proper paperwork.

edited 15th May '16 11:52:46 AM by RavenWilder

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122433: May 15th 2016 at 11:55:18 AM

[up] It is, but the registration deadlines for several states were a long, long time in advance of the primaries. 6 months in my case, which accomplishes nothing other than to suppress certain demographics, and possibly save a small amount of money.

edited 15th May '16 11:59:40 AM by CaptainCapsase

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#122434: May 15th 2016 at 11:59:48 AM

Does being registered as a member of a particular party even mean anything outside of voting in closed primaries and what party's junk mail you receive?

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#122435: May 15th 2016 at 12:02:06 PM

Are we still talking about the system being "unfair" to Sander?

edited 15th May '16 12:03:25 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122436: May 15th 2016 at 12:08:26 PM

[up] I'm talking more broadly about how the issues with American democracy, and more specifically about the

[up][up] It's a mechanism of suppressing votes, the more complicated the voting process, the fewer people tend to vote, and this effect is particularly pronounced against poor/young voters. Incidentally, caucuses, where Sanders tended to do best, are absolutely idiotic in my opinion. There's literally no reason not to have open primaries considering even in open states the amount of fifth column voters are even rarer than Trump-Sanders crossover voters.

edited 15th May '16 12:10:58 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#122437: May 15th 2016 at 12:09:55 PM

How complicated do you think registering for a party is, because where I am at least, it was easy and only took a second.

Edit: I mean, I get different states do things differently, but do you have any proof it's on average a complicated process?

edited 15th May '16 12:11:44 PM by LSBK

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#122438: May 15th 2016 at 12:10:32 PM

How is it biased against minorities and poor people? Its free, and there are tons of minorities in the party.

As for young people, all the people I know who are in my age range got registered in time, and we're in NY, which had a very early deadline.

edited 15th May '16 12:11:36 PM by smokeycut

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122439: May 15th 2016 at 12:11:34 PM

[up] It's not specifically biased against minorities, but it tends to suppress poorer voters who simply don't have the time or the energy to go through a complicated registration process.

[up][up] Perhaps I'm biased because I spent around 5 hours on the phone due to my registration not actually being changed despite me submitting an application (found in an obscure corner of the state's website) about a month in advance of the deadline.

edited 15th May '16 12:12:49 PM by CaptainCapsase

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#122440: May 15th 2016 at 12:12:37 PM

Its not complicated though. You fill out some personal info (name, address, stuff like that) and list the party you wanna join. Bam. Finished.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122441: May 15th 2016 at 12:13:57 PM

[up] Every additional layer of complexity tends to reduce voters, which is why there's so much pushback against voter ID laws, and in some states it can be very complicated.

edited 15th May '16 12:14:25 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#122442: May 15th 2016 at 12:15:37 PM

If you're the kind of person who considers giving your name and address too many layers you probably aren't going to vote anyway.

edited 15th May '16 12:16:05 PM by LSBK

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122443: May 15th 2016 at 12:16:33 PM

[up] It's quite a bit more complicated in some states, particularly the big ones like NY, for example. In that particular case, there was a deadline 6 months in advance of the primary, well before ordinary voters actually start paying attention to the process.

I wouldn't be so opposed to the way primaries work if our system actually allowed for more than 2 political parties.

edited 15th May '16 12:18:24 PM by CaptainCapsase

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#122444: May 15th 2016 at 12:17:44 PM

You only need to register with a party once, though, right? After that you just stay registered with them for all future primaries, unless you decide to change your affiliation?

edited 15th May '16 12:18:33 PM by RavenWilder

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122445: May 15th 2016 at 12:19:29 PM

[up] Nope, you need to register for the party, then register to vote in the primary, though you can do both at the same time.

edited 15th May '16 12:19:46 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#122446: May 15th 2016 at 12:20:05 PM

[up][up][up]Wasn't New York pointed out as being exceptionally difficult, though? It really doesn't help your point if it's an outlier, which is seems to be.

edited 15th May '16 12:20:22 PM by LSBK

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#122447: May 15th 2016 at 12:20:20 PM

You only need to register once, and yeah, NY's deadline is kind of dumb, but you only have to care about it once.

You don't have to specifically register to participate in the primary. That's a load of bull. The most you need to do in some places is bring a form of ID, and I didn't even need that.

NY's registration process was incredibly simple, it just had an early deadline. Trust me, I just did it this year.

edited 15th May '16 12:22:17 PM by smokeycut

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122448: May 15th 2016 at 12:20:47 PM

[up][up] Most of the big states, except for California are fairly difficult about registering for primaries, and that's where most of the delegates are.

The point is, closed primaries are pretty much in the same vote of voter ID laws. They don't really accomplish much besides making it harder for people to vote, particularly those who don't start paying attention until the weeks coming up on the primary.

edited 15th May '16 12:21:53 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#122449: May 15th 2016 at 12:21:33 PM

[up]And again, I ask you for actual proof of that.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122450: May 15th 2016 at 12:26:26 PM

[up] Okay, I'm wrong about the other big states other than NY having extremely inconvenient dates (most were 2 months to a month in advance), but let's go back to the main point: What does a closed primary accomplish other than slightly lowering voter turnout dependent on how hard it is to register?

edited 15th May '16 12:26:47 PM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top