i voted yesterday.
went in early, which i can do in ohio. nobody there, in and out in ten minuets.
i got my ballot and checked off every democrat who was running. i dont care for the democrats, as the national organization leaves a lot to be desired. but a vote for a republican is a vote for chaos.
so i had a choice between the crackpots, liars, fascists, and racists who make up th emodern republican party, or the ineffectual but generally well meaning idiots who seem to make up the democrats.
a contrast between hatred and cruelty versus compassion and good intentions.
easy
I'll be filling out my mail-in ballot tomorrow. Pretty much the same, a Dem sweep. Big surprise, for an atheist in California. I don't actually have to vote, given the demographics, but I make my mark, anyway.
i used to do mail-in, because it makes so much sense. but with the republicans doing everything they can to invalidate ballots, i no longer trust it. so i go to the polls in person, stick my paper ballot into the machine myself, and wait for the okay code to appear.
i other news, th powerball lottery is up to 1.5 billion bucks tonight, so i ivested ten bucks in my future and bought five tickets. if i win, i will buy a new 4WD pickup tomorrow instead of the 100,000 mile chevy cobalt i am planning to purchse
that would be a ute to you southern cross types
The various pundits I've come across lately are buzzing about a red wave. Do you think there will be one? If so, why? Is it the economy/inflation?
I think our local ruling coalition's numbers are currently under siege because of that. People can barely afford to pay their mortgage. Of course, I suspect that a change in government would not address that quickly - if at all.
so many races are too close to call
i dont think anybody is going to get a wave.
one consequence of close races is that the extremists can come up and demand concessions from their more moderate leadership, as everyone must cooperate to get things done
There's a big red wave coming. Inflation, economy, and crime are the drivers.
Quote from: billy rubin on November 05, 2022, 12:23:22 PMso many races are too close to call
I was wondering about that.
For instance, I seem to remember people (in a presidential race) calling a victory scenario, one
I would call "too close for comfort," a landslide.
Is it just down to who actually gets the seats? I must admit, I struggle to understand the American concepts of landslides, waves and other such election calamities.
american elections are generally quite evenly divided in the popular vote. thats just who we are.
but we have this ancient electoral college feature that in some states awards 100 percent of the votes to a winner who only got 51 percent. thats what often generates "landslides."
the american senate and the electoral college are flawed relics of a political crazy quilt that is 250 years out of date. but because the peopke who benefit from it have to agree to getvrid of it, it wull never go away.
in 1984 the republican/democrat split of the popular vote was 59/41. but the democrat was awarded a single state,.
It is in the number of races won, then, not in how they were won?
Like, for instance, one party winning 300 seats in Congress would be a wave of their colour, even if, say, 100 of those seats were won by the slimmest of margins?
That said, you are not alone in the blocks being very evenly matched. In that company are a lot of countries with two well-established political parties or party blocks/alliances. The line between the reddest blue and the bluest red is... No line at all. That's the case here, as well.
As for the electoral college, we have done a few rounds about it, and it sounds not too far from the system we use to basically make sure that the biggest parties and the biggest cities do not end up with a monopoly on national policy through the weight of numbers. Here though, most of the "machinery" is behind the curtains.
our electoral college was designed to keep the decision making in the hands of the elite, as a defense against the popular vote. if electors are faithful to the people it works okay
but it is lopsided in representation, like our senate. that body has to agree with our house in order to pass legislation, and it alsi approves presidential appointments but it is not based on population, si the result isbthat states with verybfewbpeople (Wyoming, 600,000) get the same voucecas states with very many (califirnia, 30-plus million).
i see no reason why a vote from someone in wyoming should have 60 times the power of the vote of someone in california .
the electoral college gets represetatives based onbthe number of congressmen and senators.
I Australia, lower house electorates have roughly the same number of voters, within defined limits, and it is the Electoral Commission that does redistributions when needed. Each electorate elects one Member of Parliament to represent it. The party that gets the most seats in the lower house gets to select the Prime Minister and forms the Government.
The upper house has twelve Senators for each state, with two each for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Senators are elected on a proportional representation basis.
The Senate is sometimes called the States' House and is supposed to act to provide checks and balances on the Government. Sometimes it works properly... ::)
Our system is far from perfect, but I'm afraid I look at the US system and simply SMH.
The US system is broken, with the Electoral College and gerrymandering getting in the way of actual democracy. We are still dealing with "states' rights" after all these years.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 08, 2022, 03:44:15 PMThe US system is broken, with the Electoral College and gerrymandering getting in the way of actual democracy. We are still dealing with "states' rights" after all these years.
Maybe because it is called the United States of America?
Quote from: Tom62 on November 08, 2022, 04:33:33 PMQuote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 08, 2022, 03:44:15 PMThe US system is broken, with the Electoral College and gerrymandering getting in the way of actual democracy. We are still dealing with "states' rights" after all these years.
Maybe because it is called the United States of America?
Be careful Tom. Questioning unlimited federal authority is the first step to radicalism.
Well, The Asmo has been called worse than radical, so He shalt opine.
The place is called the United States of America. That implies that they largely govern themselves in a federative "alliance." Tighter bound than members of a confederacy, but more loosely so than provinces or administrative divisions in a unitary state. In that setting, something like an electoral college is actually useful. Its purpose could then be likened to making sure that big, populous countries like Germany or France do not get to rule over the smaller ones like Belgium or Slovenia within the framework of the EU. Now, the EU is arguably more loosely bound together than the United States, but then arguably, it is not.
Of course, if that is to be the case, each individual state should be free to manage its internal affairs without the fed getting all whingy, which... Yeah, I defer to the above.
Quote from: Tom62 on November 08, 2022, 04:33:33 PMQuote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 08, 2022, 03:44:15 PMThe US system is broken, with the Electoral College and gerrymandering getting in the way of actual democracy. We are still dealing with "states' rights" after all these years.
Maybe because it is called the United States of America?
The first word is "united". The "states rights" folks have been wanting to disunite it since the Civil War. The Constitution does not allow for "unlimited" federal power. The federal government is one of limited powers. But it makes it clear that the Constitution and federal laws/treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Hmm... The United Nations has "united" in its name, and yet those nations are largely free to do their thing.
I don't think union is necessarily the key word here - federation probably is.
The states tried a federation--that was the form of government created in the first constitution. It did not work. Fuckwits with a desire to have more power to oppress in their particular fiefdoms have been displeased ever since the US Constitution was ratified. They may eventually succeed in getting the Christofascist paradise they long for though.
I just think that the USA is far too big to be governed centrally. Here in Germany we also have a federal state system and loads of disagreements between the states and with the federal government.
a big problem in th eunited states is that there are severe population disparities that are ignored by our system.
we have two states-- wyoming and vermont-- with fewer people than the city of washington dc.
yet the states have representation in the government, and washington does not.
this is a relic of the formation of the country, when previously independent small colonies were loathe to give up their autonomy in a union. those days are way past, but the system that gave small colonies a greater voice in government still helps them now that they are states, and helps newer states with small populations.
the result is that our represntation is partially based on land, and not on people.