Orrin Hatch writes about a meeting that actually hadn't happened yet

[♪alt13]

Does it? Is your issue that many people don't exercise their right to vote?

Yes I think it does. Another option would be approval voting. Either one is going to temper the election better than our current binary first past the post system. In a ranked choice system candidates would be less dependent upon energizing a base and more dependent on being acceptable to people that may not share the opinions of that base.

The fact that many people do not exercise their right to vote is an issue but not the entire issue. I think that most of the people that don't vote have become cynical about the process and I think they have good reason to be. I don't think that they are too busy to vote or that they are unfamiliar with the candidates or that they just don't care. I think they know that they don't have a vote that matters and they don't feel that anyone is really representing them.

 

[♪alt13]

Check out [url]www.fairvote.org[/URL] if you're at all interested in alternatives to the current ballot system.

 

[franklin]

Yes I think it does. Another option would be approval voting. Either one is going to temper the election better than our current binary first past the post system. In a ranked choice system candidates would be less dependent upon energizing a base and more dependent on being acceptable to people that may not share the opinions of that base.

The fact that many people do not exercise their right to vote is an issue but not the entire issue. I think that most of the people that don't vote have become cynical about the process and I think they have good reason to be. I don't think that they are too busy to vote or that they are unfamiliar with the candidates or that they just don't care. I think they know that they don't have a vote that matters and they don't feel that anyone is really representing them.

Hope and Change!
Hope and Change!
Change!
Change!
Change!

The easy solution is to simply vote opposite party and make your vote matter. It doesn't matter what system you create, you will not cure voter apathy.

 

[green]

Which is why we should have ranked choice voting. Right now candidates get elected with the support of only about 30% of the voting age population and less than half of those that vote. Under Ranked choice voting the candidate needs to seek 2nd best and third best votes in order to win. This helps assure that a larger proportion of citizens at least approve of if not fully support a candidate.

The solution to young people voting is online voting. It's pretty simple: make an app that allows people to vote. You'd see young voters voting in record numbers.

But then the old codgers would lose their power and no one wants that.

Oh, and campaign finance reform. As long as big business can buy our politicians, we are screwed.

 

[Stoked]

The solution to young people voting is online voting. It's pretty simple: make an app that allows people to vote. You'd see young voters voting in record numbers.

But then the old codgers would lose their power and no one wants that.

Oh, and campaign finance reform. As long as big business can buy our politicians, we are screwed.

What kind of voting app wouldn't be super easy to hack and thereby skew results?

 

[JimLes]

Hate people that have a pre set opinion and are unwilling to budge or admit they were wrong.

Isn't that the whole point of politics? That you have opinions, you present them in your campaign, you get elected, and then you stick to those positions as promised?

I mean, is there anyone here who can honestly say they did not think less of Obama(however little you might have thought of him before) when his views on gay marriage "evolved" exactly when it became politically convenient?

 

[JimLes]

Most of those issues are not that black and white. How much more gun control? Or in what specific ways? Same with Abortion, education, healthcare, immigration, foreign policy... It's not an A or B choice world. There is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...

Fine, it's A or B1, B2, B3 then. You either support complete, unfettered access to abortion or not. That's binary. You support foreign wars or not. That's binary. You either support special policies against Muslim immigration or not. You either want to discriminate against Muslims or you don't want to. Wanting to discriminate a little is still wanting to discriminate.

These issues are binary, and the attempts to make them "not black and white" or talk about "moderate" positions is nothing more than a conservative attempt at semantics.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Fine, it's A or B1, B2, B3 then. You either support complete, unfettered access to abortion or not. That's binary. You support foreign wars or not. That's binary. You either support special policies against Muslim immigration or not. You either want to discriminate against Muslims or you don't want to. Wanting to discriminate a little is still wanting to discriminate.

These issues are binary, and the attempts to make them "not black and white" or talk about "moderate" positions is nothing more than a conservative attempt at semantics.

We live in a country with an awful lot of people from a ton of different backgrounds. Most recognize that compromise is necessary. It's for that reason that we rarely end up with an all or nothing situation like the one you describe.

Can we abort an 8 month old fetus on a whim? No? then by your definition abortion must be illegal.
Are we allowed to obtain an unlimited collection of weapons? No? Then by your definition we must not have the right to bear arms. Or maybe we do have these rights, but have reached compromises somewhere in the middle.

 

[♪alt13]

Fine, it's A or B1, B2, B3 then. You either support complete, unfettered access to abortion or not. That's binary. You support foreign wars or not. That's binary. You either support special policies against Muslim immigration or not. You either want to discriminate against Muslims or you don't want to. Wanting to discriminate a little is still wanting to discriminate.

These issues are binary, and the attempts to make them "not black and white" or talk about "moderate" positions is nothing more than a conservative attempt at semantics.

There are a great many centrists that don't view abortion as a black and white issue. I think most people realize that time and circumstance drastically changes what it is we are talking about. You can try to frame it as a black and white cut and dry issue but that only makes you look like an extremist to the vast majority of people. The SCOTUS has struck down banning abortion before viability. The position that abortion should be legal before viability but should not be after unless to save the life of the mother seems to be the centrist position. You can scream and yell that that position doesn't exist all you want, it changes nothing other than to make you look foolish.

 

[Stoked]

Jimles just trotted out the worst argument he has ever had. He just entered the troll game bad.

Conservative semantics lol. oof

 

[The Thriller]

I can think of 4 things we could do that would help

1. Term limits

2. Ranked choice voting for all offices

3. Independent commission to draw district boundaries

4. Multi member districts in the state and Federal House



I edited the order to create an acronym TRIM

Nice list. I agree especially with the gerrymandering part.

But No campaign finance reform?

I'm amazed at the number of Americans who couldn't care less that most campaign contributions come from a handful of families. Then we wonder why the political parties and politicians are so disconnected from the average man?

Democracy cannot function when a handful wield such power and influence. The Kochs alone have pledged to give $1 billion to republican campaigns this election cycle. The average man and all of the labor unions combined can't offset the billions given by the Kochs and other corporate elite.

If you don't find this detrimental to our system then I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[♪alt13]

Nice list. I agree especially with the gerrymandering part.

But No campaign finance reform?

I'm amazed at the number of Americans who couldn't care less that most campaign contributions come from a handful of families. Then we wonder why the political parties and politicians are so disconnected from the average man?

Democracy cannot function when a handful wield such power and influence. The Kochs alone have pledged to give $1 billion to republican campaigns this election cycle. The average man and all of the labor unions combined can't offset the billions given by the Kochs and other corporate elite.

If you don't find this detrimental to our system then I don't know what to tell ya.

First I don't buy that last line that seems to imply that republicans will inevitably out raise democrats because of of the Koch bros. Obama raised more money and had more money spent in support of him than anyone ever. I'm fairly confident that Hilary will destroy Trump in the money dept. Most of Hollywood is liberal as are some very politically active billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg.

Second IIRC the individual contribution limit is $2500. So most of that billion dollars isn't going to candidates it's going to SuperPacs. Campaign Finance reform would not stop that money because it isn't campaign finance. Superpacs operate very close to that line but I don't know of a solution that wouldn't limit the ability of all types of organizations to get their message out. There is too much money in politics but where do we draw the line and who gets to decide that one cause or another is overstepping that line? If you want to propose something or know of something you think fits the bill, I will listen.

 

[green]

What kind of voting app wouldn't be super easy to hack and thereby skew results?

There would be plenty. And, it's not like it isn't easy to commit voter fraud right now. Just an excuse.

Another thing is that we need to move the primary elections around. Imagine if California followed up by most of the western states went first this year (assuming Bernie wins Cali)...Hillary is swept out west and out of the race before she can get to the south.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There would be plenty. And, it's not like it isn't easy to commit voter fraud right now. Just an excuse.

Another thing is that we need to move the primary elections around. Imagine if California followed up by most of the western states went first this year (assuming Bernie wins Cali)...Hillary is swept out west and out of the race before she can get to the south.

Political parties are not interested in creating a system that will allow the outsider to win. The DNC is not going to change the order of their states or remove the super delegates thing or anything else that would make it more likely that an outsider could win their nomination. Bernie has probably scared them so much that they will add even more safeguards the next time around.

The RNC is wishing they had put as many safeguards in place as the DNC.

 

[JimLes]

Can we abort an 8 month old fetus on a whim? No? then by your definition abortion must be illegal.

It's not illegal, it's restricted. Depending on what state you live, to different degrees, to. And yes, I do believe you should be able to abort a fetus at any point.

 

[JimLes]

The position that abortion should be legal before viability but should not be after unless to save the life of the mother seems to be the centrist position. You can scream and yell that that position doesn't exist all you want, it changes nothing other than to make you look foolish.

A centrist position exists, it's just hypocritical like all centrist positions. That was my point, though you seem to have missed it.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's not illegal, it's restricted. Depending on what state you live, to different degrees, to. And yes, I do believe you should be able to abort a fetus at any point.

Did you post this simply to prove that your claim that these are binary choices is ridiculous? Clearly the actual position on this topic is somewhere between the guy who is 100% against abortion no matter the circumstances and you.

And BTW, do you seriously think it would be okay to abort a fetus the month (or even day) before birth when it is completely viable?

 

[♪alt13]

A centrist position exists, it's just hypocritical like all centrist positions. That was my point, though you seem to have missed it.

You have failed to make an argument as to why abortion is acceptable other than your personal cheerleading beliefs. It is hypocritical of you to stand on such an argument and then criticize people who have different beliefs wthout offering a rational argument.

The middle ground is not hypocritical. The people that would define viability as the point when a child has a right to life have taken a very objective position in regards to abortion. In seeking to define when a child is more than simply an extension of the mother they choose to define it as when that child can survive outside the womb. That's pretty rational.

 

[Stoked]

A centrist position exists, it's just hypocritical like all centrist positions. That was my point, though you seem to have missed it.

And your point is rubbish.

 

[green]

Totally changing directions here, but don't most phones have fingerprint scanners now?

Vote on your phone using your fingerprint. Boom. There is still kinks and fraud is still possible, but it's better than now.