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
The House will take decades to undo because the Democrats will have to start taking local politics seriously again, as well as gubernatorial races. The parochial focus of a typical Congressional district means that the Rep has to only appeal to the racist, provincial sensibilities of his immediate constituents while campaigning for a job of national importance.
Because Republican control over it is treated as a Foregone Conclusion. If you want a more detailed explanation...
The House is pegged at 435 seats, with the distribution allotted to each state changed according to census data collected at the start of each decade. This data is then used by a state committee, under the governor's authority in each state, to draw the borders of each district. In the South and Midwest, especially, this means that Republican governors are enclosing most of the state's democrats into one district, so that Republican candidates are assured victory in the rest within that state.
edited 22nd Oct '16 9:05:06 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."But still, why isn't the House talked about?
Because it's extremely unlikely to change. The only reason it's even slightly in play this year is that Trump has basically caused a meltdown in the Republican party.
Also, the house is like 90+% safe seats. There's only a couple dozen seats that are realistically up for grabs in any given year. For example, my district doesn't even have a Republican on the ballot. The only suspense is which Democrat will win.
P.S. As long as we're sharing voting experiences, I might as well contribute what it was like back when I was in Georgia. In Georgia, I registered to vote at the DMV as part of my application for a drivers license. I voted in person, showing my license as ID. They used touchscreen machines with no physical ballots or paper anything.
edited 22nd Oct '16 9:06:49 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayYou'll be extremely surprised to hear that I would suggest solving this by having larger districts that elect more than one representative each, with the results counted in a way that favours smaller parties a bit. I know, I know - I've just blown your mind.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
![]()
With the alarming exception of Charlie Baker, who is basically an Invincible Villain, Massachusetts is a one-party state. Unless Martha Coakley is on the ballot, the Democratic Primary is the real contest.
"You'll be extremely surprised to hear that I would suggest solving this by having larger districts that elect more than one representative each, with the results counted in a way that favours smaller parties a bit. I know, I know - I've just blown your mind."
Smaller parties in America come in two varieties: racist and insane. You don't want to facilitate their participation in government.
edited 22nd Oct '16 9:08:48 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."You'll be extremely surprised to hear that I would suggest solving this by having larger districts that elect more than one representative each, with the results counted in a way that favours smaller parties a bit. I know, I know - I've just blown your mind.
If you use FPTP, then this essentially replicates the Senate. If you're arguing for proportional representation, that as its own issues, and it's not like you can just switch models overnight. Besides, it would require rewriting the constitution.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlaySmaller parties wouldn't be the same in this system, because the two major parties would start breaking down into factions that become small parties in their own right.
I am doing exactly that, as I always do when I discuss American politics with anyone. I know it's not going to happen, and that even if it was going to happen it wouldn't be easy to implement. It would be good in the long run, but it would really hurt for at least a decade or two.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.@Voting Registration: Basically what happened with me was they were doing a voting drive at my college like they do every year back in 2009 and I did the registration form
right there.
Within New York State voter registration forms also come with the health insurance forms.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.Storyteller already covered California's registration process, so I'll add that this year a new law was passed that automatically registers eligible citizens to vote when they apply for or renew their driver's license.
You can also register online if you have the proper identification. I did when I moved out of my old county so I could vote at my new home's designated polling station.
Unfortunately, I don't have the ID required to register online. Luckily, that hasn't proved much of a problem.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayThat's great. Every state should copy that. (And by so doing move that little bit closer to how we have it, because obviously we're better at everything.)
Online registration is also a good idea. In Estonia you can actually vote online. They've figured out a way to make that fraud-proof, apparently. (If I had to guess how you actually log on securely I'd assume it's similar to how we log on to government services here, but I could be wrong so I won't go into it.) If Estonia can do it, other Western countries can probably do it, as well. I think that makes it just a matter of time before we all have that option. That'll be great - assuming that it really does work.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.@ the voter ID thing: Ontario actually requires you to have your ID when you vote...but you can use your driver's license, your birth certificate, your passport, your health card (which you should really have if you can vote in Ontario anyway), or a "Photo ID Card" which can be obtained for free if you go to one of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (yes, alcohol is a government monopoly in Ontario, it's how we got out of Prohibition) stores and fill out a form.
So, we require photo ID to vote...but it's really easy to get and you can even get it for free.
Voter ID laws are okay when they use that approach, or Australia's mandatory voting approach which basically obligates the government to flat out give every eligible voter a free ID.
edited 22nd Oct '16 9:29:53 PM by Zendervai
The problem with voter ID laws in the US is that the people pushing ID requirements also tend to be the same people making it harder and harder to obtain said I Ds.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayRe: House Talk.
Nope.
It's definitely in play, for the very reason that the Dems lost it. Gerrymandering is going to backfire spectacularly due to Trump.
A simple explanation here is that republicans when gerrymandering didn't just pack Democrats into small, high Democratic districts, they also spread out their OWN highly GOP districts to turn areas that were "even" or "leaning democratic" into areas favorable to them.
A very simplistic example would be taking a district that leans republican by 10 points, and a district that's evenly split, and redrawing lines so you have two republican districts that are +5.
Again, it's a simplistic example but this is exactly what the GOP ended up doing- sacrificing a lot of areas with heavily republican "lean" to create a lot of districts that are marginally republican as this quote from Washington Post explains:
Normally, a 4 or 5 point lean would be exceptionally difficult for Dems to overcome, especially when you consider incumbents tend to have an advantage. Even in a presidential year the national margin is usually only about 3 or 4 points or so. Obama 08 was only 7 points, and that kind of candidate and the record breaking turnout that came with him shows up once in a generation with Reagan arguably being the last one.
Now, what seems to be happening here is that the GOP's toxic and racist base ended up voting in a candidate that was SO bad that they're looking at a historic loss in the modern era. Hillary has several polls in the 9, 10, and 11 point range and there is an argument (based on ground game, and unlikely voters showing up in record numbers) that these estimates are all lowballs. They're losing not only "contestable" districts, but they're losing districts that would have been safe if they had never gerrymandered in the first place.
Polling can't and never will be able to compensate for ground game and GOTV operations, along with the unprecedented unfavorability and toxicity of Trump among women and minorities.
That's landslide territory. Not even Texas would withstand that kind of margin.
The GOP is absolutely fucked beyond all recognition after Nov. 8th, barring some extreme disaster.
edited 22nd Oct '16 9:43:52 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Re: "In Estonia you can actually vote online. They've figured out a way to make that fraud-proof, apparently."
My gut reaction as someone with an IT bent and that of experts in voting security I've read is "no, no, no, no and fuck no". There are too many vectors for attack and calling an online voting system "fraud-proof" is like calling the Titanic "unsinkable". Even the backbones of security like encryption systems have occasionally had vulnerabilities discovered in them.
"Online registration is also a good idea. In Estonia you can actually vote online. They've figured out a way to make that fraud-proof, apparently. (If I had to guess how you actually log on securely I'd assume it's similar to how we log on to government services here, but I could be wrong so I won't go into it.) If Estonia can do it, other Western countries can probably do it, as well. I think that makes it just a matter of time before we all have that option. That'll be great - assuming that it really does work."
That's interesting, but I'd hold off on calling it "fraud-proof." I mean, does anyone really have that much of a vested interest in subverting the electoral process in Estonia? Russia's too busy hacking American government networks, after all. I doubt their system would be penetrated deeply enough to actually stress-test its safeguards.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Well, the one time someone took umbrage with Estonia, they didn't target the electoral machine system but rather everything connected to Estonia on the internet
.
EDIT: Bellingcat takes a look at Wikileaks, RT and Trump supporters' claims that the Clinton campaign is trying to smear Julian Assange by way of a dating site that has accused him of pedophilia
. That last part isn't a joke
. There isn't much to said claims, as is the norm now.
edited 23rd Oct '16 1:29:04 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotRemember that he might very well be innocent of the crimes he's accused of. If he leaves the embassy, the police will arrest him immediately so that he can be taken to the authorities in Sweden. There, he will be tried for rape - and from what I've read about the case, it's not likely that they'll end up convicting him, as there's very little evidence. Then he's free.
If he does get a sentence in Sweden he'll serve it there. I doubt that it will be a long sentence. Again, after that he's free.
Assange fears that Sweden would extradite him to the US, but the US isn't currently accusing him, at least in any sort of court, of anything that would warrant extradition. In that sense his fear seems baseless. (Then again, if he was "disappeared" or just plain assassinated by the CIA when he's in Sweden I don't think anyone would be all that surprised. After all, the US has a history of doing that sort of stuff in neutral countries and even its actual allies, so it wouldn't be creating a precedent or anything.)
Anyway, the point is that, as long as the US doesn't do anything like actual assassination, he's only going to be tried - in Sweden - for the crimes he's accused of there, and he'll probably either walk or be given a suspended sentence, which would mean he'd have to basically stay in Sweden for a while and not commit any crimes.
EDIT: I took a look at the stuff that's been revealed about the US investigation, and apparently it's quite a lot more advanced than I had thought - but it's all secret, so the source is always either Wikileaks or an affiliate of Wikileaks. Anyway, the claim is that several US agencies have carried out investigations into Assange, and they seem fairly confident they'll jail him for a very long time. Whether these allegations are true, I don't know.
edited 23rd Oct '16 6:41:26 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.ABC Poll has Clinton at +12 and 50%. Trump at 38%
Election Night is gonna be straight LIT!
edited 23rd Oct '16 7:07:18 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!

Incidentally, why am I not seeing predictions or polls about the House at all? Everywhere I look it's just President and Senate. I actually thought you were only doing those and the state governments this time. The more you learn...
But still, why isn't the House talked about? Isn't it at least as important as the Senate? (My impression is that it's much more important, but I could be wrong.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.