2024 is the Biggest Election Year in History 392
Economist, in an interactive post: In 2024, countries with more than half the world's population -- over four billion people -- will send their citizens to the polls. But many elections are not fully free and fair. Some of these will have no meaningful influence on governments. In the most democratic countries, such as Britain, elections will decide the next government or cause a substantial change in policy. In Russia, one of the least democratic, the vote is very unlikely to weaken Vladimir Putin's grip on power.
For countries in between, such as India or the United States, elections still matter, and may even be free and fair. But other aspects of democracy, such as participation or governance, have weaknesses. Some places, such as Brazil and Turkey, will not hold general elections in 2024 but have local or municipal elections in which the whole country will participate. Similarly, the European Union's 27 member states will elect the bloc's next parliament. More people will vote in 2024 than in any previous year. But this great march to the ballot box does not necessarily mean an explosion of democracy.
For countries in between, such as India or the United States, elections still matter, and may even be free and fair. But other aspects of democracy, such as participation or governance, have weaknesses. Some places, such as Brazil and Turkey, will not hold general elections in 2024 but have local or municipal elections in which the whole country will participate. Similarly, the European Union's 27 member states will elect the bloc's next parliament. More people will vote in 2024 than in any previous year. But this great march to the ballot box does not necessarily mean an explosion of democracy.
Go the extra mile (Score:3)
Re:Go the extra mile (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK's election next year is a joke. The Tories are a shambles, but Labour are basically just Tory Lite, hopefully a little more competent. Voters have very little choice in terms of policies or political philosophies, and our First Past The Post system ensures that most people's views will be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
And we inherited the same broken shit [youtube.com]
The people didn't go for Labour's Corbyn (Score:4, Insightful)
We were offered a real alternative with that nice JC, but the public wasn't impressed. Consider what would have happened if Corbyn had been in power when the Ukraine invasion had occurred, given his expressed opinions on the matter since?
The benefit of the FPTP system is being seen in the fact that it gives the Muslim voters and anti-democratic groups on the left and the right nowhere to go when the big parties have the courage to ignore their special pleadings. The alternative is to be seen in Germany, where the AfD and the Left are making it ever harder for the establishment to keep a respectable course. Meanwhile in Spain the Socialists have retained office by giving the Catalan seditionists pardons, something they promised not to do.
My preferred solution is to have the Prime Minister elected by a vote of the House - but then for them not to be removed by anything except a 'constructive' vote of no confidence, where an alternative candidate is voted into place instead. To allow this to happen the ability to force through a budget that passes without such a vote is necessary. The effect is to prevent small parties getting special privileges as the price of their support for the executive. Oh and a three year cycle - as in Australia and New Zealand - rather than Europe's five or America's four, would keep the politicians on a shorter leash.
So why was Atlee's Labour rejected after 5 years (Score:2)
And how would a Corbynite government avoided the high energy prices except by surrendering the Ukrainians to the tender embraces of Putin?
The 1970s are what you get if you allow a union thug dominated government to rule; electricity blackouts to keep coal miners in their elite incomes whilst killing unknown thousands as a result of the air pollution that coal fired power stations produced. Yes, the destruction of the tradition pit villages was a tragedy that was not handled well, but simply pumping more mon
Re: (Score:2)
If you recall, one of their policies was to create a state run energy company. France did something similar, not by choice, when EDF ran out of money and had to be nationalized. That's why in France the increase in prices was capped at 4%.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot mod system works fine, why do you care what other people think? Just at read at -1, ignore the mods they just seem to be a way of expressing peoples political leanings. Why do you or anyone else need the approval of the moderators, I you need protection from the occasional troll sure read at a higher level your choice.
It is way better than most places where if your post is deemed "unworthy" it is simply removed.
The only thing I would like to change, is allowing modding of articles you have commente
Re: (Score:3)
There wouldn't have even been the need for Russi to invade if the US and UK had sane foreign policy the past 15 years.
Unfortunately, although the US and British foreign policies weren't the best, neither country had major leverage to bear on the politburo of the resurgent USSR. There really isn't a policy that works well against "aggressive insane autocrat with a large army and nuclear weapons". The closest choice is the least-worst foreign policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump claims he could have stopped it. A few morons actually believe him. I don't know how he would have stopped it, other than to just let Russia do what it wants, because Trump seems to love dictators, or at least he envies them for not having to deal with democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Need? Please explain. Were tanks massing on Russia's border?
But seriously, Russia decided to invade nominally for security ( Ukraine as buffer between NATO and Russia ).
I expect the real reason was just to grab some land.
But looking onward, assuming Russia was successful in taking Ukraine...
How long until Ukraine is considered part of Russia, and there is a "need" for another buffer.
And another war.
Re: (Score:3)
Putin allies have already threatened Poland, calling it a country that really shouldn't exist naturally.
Re: (Score:2)
The NHS will probably get proper funding again at least.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe, but Labour are already saying that there is no money for their flagship Green New Deal or whatever they call it.
It's BS of course, they are simply making a choice not to tax the wealthy and make multinational businesses pay their fair share.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly you're a Brit so you very likely have more insite here than me but one of the absolute core platform goals of Labour right now is spending more on the NHS. Seems to me if they fail to deliver on this they won't stay in power long and I would think they would know that. Increasing spending is also a very real way for them to improve British quality of life that will be felt by most folks which is absolute gold for winning voters in a democracy.
As I said though, you likely have more ex
Re:Go the extra mile (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow many other countries have higher taxes and have not suffered this fate.
It's the lie they tell you to let them keep more of their wealth. Tax us and it will be bad for you, when in fact the opposite is very clearly true.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of Europe has higher taxes on the wealthy than the UK. What's more, even with our low taxes, all the very wealthy leave anyway. They live here for just under half the year - it's called non-domiciled status.
Re: Go the extra mile (Score:5, Insightful)
You can take "their" wealth over and over again because it trickles up. What you can't do is steal money from the working class over and over again because it doesn't trickle down.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only steal wealthy people's wealth once and then they won't have any more to take and those multinational businesses will just dramatically increase prices to offset confiscatory tax policy or leave your country's market altogether. What you suggest will only lead to even higher prices for goods. Before the shortages of course and then there won't be goods to be had at all.
The problem isn't "stealing wealthy peoples' wealth", it is the tax cuts that had been implemented benefiting wealthy people.
Having a lower tax rate on investment income than on work income makes not a lick of sense. But the rich have the influence to nudge tax laws to benefit them (while saying to all the people who didn't get a benefit from taxes cut, "Look, we lowered taxes!")
Re: (Score:3)
Tax cuts simply allow people to keep more of their own money. Why do you feel entitled to my property? I don't feel entitled to yours. Yet.
I don't feel entitled to your property. I do, however, think that everyone (and that means you) should contribute toward the funding that keeps our society functioning.
And if the society functioning is making your rich, your tax rate shouldn't be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Ballot papers need to have a "none of the above" option. If that gets the majority vote then the sitting MP is fired and no replacement can be made until the next general election. If a high enough proportion of MPs are fired then all MPs are fired and parliament is totally dissolved until the next general election. And there can't be a general election for another 4 years.
Added to this abolutely anyone whatsoever who wants to stand for parliament should be able to do so without a fee.
"Democracy"
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Ballot papers need to have a "none of the above" option. If that gets the majority vote then the sitting MP is fired and no replacement can be made until the next general election. If a high enough proportion of MPs are fired then all MPs are fired and parliament is totally dissolved until the next general election. And there can't be a general election for another 4 years.
Added to this abolutely anyone whatsoever who wants to stand for parliament should be able to do so without a fee.
"Democracy" in the UK is a corrupt, broken mess.
Here in the states, there's some minor squabbling over which direction to go by the riff-raff that have nothing to do with the rules, and the ruling classes doing their best to ignore both suggestions.
Ranked choice on the ballot is the number one choice of those that seem to care. The other is much more insane sounding, but much more rational in the long-run. A vote, like you suggest, of "none of the above" would vacate the office and force a re-up election with all new candidates. Anyone previously running
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone previously running is out on their keister and buh-bye to the life-long congress-critter. We need the ancient mofos out like decades ago.
All such proposals amount to giving a person living in one place a voice in who gets elected from other places.
It's none of my business if the voters of Wyoming want to keep sending the same senator to Washington again and again, because I don't live in Wyoming.
We're supposed to be respecting the voters' choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone previously running is out on their keister and buh-bye to the life-long congress-critter. We need the ancient mofos out like decades ago.
All such proposals amount to giving a person living in one place a voice in who gets elected from other places.
That particular one doesn't, but it does put qualifications on candidates ("candidates can't have run previously") and it's not clear why this qualification should be imposed, other than "this slashdot guy doesn't like the people currently in Congress."
It's none of my business if the voters of Wyoming want to keep sending the same senator to Washington again and again, because I don't live in Wyoming.
If the discussion was about the State legislature of Wyoming, you would have a point. However, a senator from Wyoming makes law for the entire U.S., so yes, it very much is your business what the senator from Wyoming does.
As many people point out, the way the
Approval voting [Re:Go the extra mile] (Score:5, Interesting)
Ranked choice on the ballot is the number one choice of those that seem to care.
I am a big fan of "Approval voting [electionscience.org]", which is, delete the part of the ballot that says "vote for only one" and substitute "vote for all the candidates you like, and not for the ones you don't like."
Sounds like a trivial change, but it has a major effect in multiparty elections, and tends toward the center of a pool, rather than a decision between extremes.
A huge advantage of this is that it doesn't change the actual vote counting process at all, and all the existing machinery and protocols still work: just don't to the part that says "discard this ballot if more than one choice is marked," and instead just count all the votes.
http://www.approvalvoting.org/ [approvalvoting.org]
Another choice that's equally good is simply survey poll voting: "rank each candidate from 0 (worst) to 10 (best)" and then just add the numbers, highest number wins. I'd be happy with that, but it requires much greater changes to the voting methodology.
(so, why approval rather than ranked choice? Well simplicity, for one, but ranked choice makes "most liked" as the first criterion in rank ordering, rather than "least disliked", while approval voting treats "most liked" versus "least disliked" equally. So, ranked choice can tend to eliminate the consensus candidate as not being the first choice of the most voters, and just take you back to the choice of extremes. Nevertheless, still a better method than plurality-takes-all*.)
* ("Plurality-takes-all" is more often called "first past the post." I don't like that name, since it is meaningless: there is no post, so the name doesn't really make it clear what it refers to.)
Re: Go the extra mile (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately when the choice inevitably becomes Republican-light vs. Republican-fascist, the Democrats get the benefit of that calculus.
Democrats aren't Republican Lite (Score:3)
Meanwhile a Republican tried to cut the healthcare and pocket the money. Both the friend & family member would be dead if they'd succeeded. It was kind of dicey for a while, in particular the friend ended up in the ER for insulin a few times because of funding cuts
Re: (Score:2)
The US election is the same sad joke in that most people's views will be ignored here as well. The Democrats are just Republican Light; they're not necessarily more competent but at least not batshit crazy.
Our choice went from "hand some to big business, talk good game," vs. "hand more to big business, talk nightmare dystopia" to "hand some to big business, talk nightmare dystopia" vs. "batshit fucking insane jewish space lasers and weather control machines in alaska." What a time to live through.
Re: (Score:2)
* The US doesn't have de jure hereditary offices.
* The US upper legislative house is directly elected rather than appointed.
* Freedom of speech is literally the highest law in the highest document of law, while in Britain it is one many legal principles that are balanced against such things as stringent libel laws and rigorous security measures.
* US states are much more autonomous than any subdivisio
Re: (Score:2)
A monarchy, by definition, is not really democratic, as 99.99999999999% of the population could never become head of state.
Still, the UK didn't have Trump or January 6th. The damage on US democracy is not to be underestimated. You can't call that a real democracy when a sizeable part of the voters wrongly think that the election was stolen from Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you also misunderstand what a normal level of public ignorance and stupidity is. About a third of the population believing in sheer nonsense based on nothing but identity and ego is perf
Re:Go the extra mile (Score:5, Informative)
To nitpick: freedom of speech is not the highest law. Sure, it appears in the U.S. Constitution ("the highest document of law"), but it was added as an amendment - it wasn't in the original. Madison was ambivalent [wikipedia.org] about offering a Bill of Rights at all, but grudgingly promised to do so in order to get the Constitution ratified.
Furthermore, freedom of speech isn't even the primary part of the 1st Amendment [google.com] - it's listed after the two (!) clauses on freedom of religion. And it has to share space alongside press, assembly, and petition.
Finally, it wasn't until early/mid-20th century jurisprudence that freedom of speech as we now consider it came to be realized. Consider for a moment the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 [wikipedia.org], which (among other things) made it a federal crime to speak ill of the government. By any plain reading, this directly violated the 1st Amendment. But John Adams had a thin skin and Congressional backing, and there was no court case that successfully challenged it. (Even the principle of striking down laws as unconstitutional - judicial review - didn't come around until Marbury v Madison [wikipedia.org] in 1803.) Applying the 1st Amendment to state laws (the so-called incorporation doctrine [cornell.edu]) didn't come about until after the Civil War. The Supreme Court itself didn't take on a free speech case challenging federal law until WWI. That first decision (Schenck v US [wikipedia.org], regarding the Espionage Act of 1917) unanimously upheld a restriction on speech; the defendant was imprisoned for handing out leaflets opposing the draft.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly relevant. The Bill of Rights is the highest law, especially because its critics considered it redundant. In other words, the main criticism was that they considered it too obvious to bother with formal codification. Basically like walking around in a t-shirt with a picture of yourself on it, or wearing the shirt of the band you're seeing. It's that fundamental to American governance and ide
In the US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada, also. There's a bit more difference in the social agenda, but when it comes to meat and potatoes issues like corporate tax rates, energy, protection of the environment and such, they sing from the same song book.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a common trope said by people in the US - usually the ones that want to vote for the Republicans but are embarrassed by their policies so they justify it by saying "both sides are the same". There are pretty clear differences between the parties such as healthcare, education, women's rights, foreign policy, immigration, etc. On all these issues there have been very policies from the two parties
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gag reflex. (Score:2, Troll)
Here in America, every single election, or so we are told, is the biggest, bestest, most important, holy shit the world will fall apart election of all time. To the point where just this headline alone made my gag reflex send me to puke-town. I am not ready for another entire year of shouting pontification about how we're all gonna die if we don't elect the right person to this figurehead position or that figurehead position while the business leaders of the country continue to steer the entire political pr
Re:Gag reflex. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, Trump did try to over turn the results of our last election which means defeating him is pretty important for the future of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Trump did try to over turn the results of our last election which means defeating him is pretty important for the future of the country.
While I can't disagree with this in a reasonable context, we don't live in a reasonable world. If we did, there's zero chance we would have been forced to choose between a blowhard and a do-nothing. Twice. Turns out, "Because it's my turn" isn't a good platform to run on. Also, "Because I'm not him" is only *slightly* better.
I wonder if we'll ever be able to vote *for* someone, rather than *against* someone?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not super into Biden or anything but he got passed an infrastructure bill even Trump recognized was necessary but completely failed to deliver on and got a toned down version of Build Back Better passed all with the smallest of majorities in congress and an opposition party who would vote against their own mothers if it meant depriving the Dems of a victory. Presidents have done more but that's hardly a "do-nothing".
This is of course assuming Trump is the blow hard but I feel like that's a safe guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if we'll ever be able to vote *for* someone, rather than *against* someone?
Maybe if you reform your electoral system. Until then, you are pretty much stuck with bi-partism and FPTP. Not to mention the worst flaw of the US election system, the electoral college.
Re:Gag reflex. (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't notice the coup attempt, then? I think it was January 6, or something like that. Gallows in front of your seat of government and calls to lynch the VP, some dead and injured cops? Does that ring any bells?
Re:Gag reflex. (Score:5, Informative)
Fake electors to vote against the will of the voters certainly qualifies in my book. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Quit trying to split hairs, asshole. Trying to overturn the results of an election he lost qualifies. Technically, it's called a "self coup".
Re: (Score:2)
Did you really just ask this question? Do you believe that a sitting president should have the power to override a fair election, subvert the will of the voters, and illegally secure his own power?
Re:Gag reflex. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't soft-peddle his coup attempt. It's not an exaggeration. He and his people tried to stay in power knowing they lost, long after all the recounts and audits proved beyond a doubt he lost fairly.
Testimony Under Oath:
Ellis, who at one point was one of Trump's most loyal lieutenants, frequently appeared on TV and in high-profile legislative sessions spreading false claims of election fraud following the 2020 election. In total, the Trump campaign paid her nearly $195,000 for her legal services between 2019 and 2021, according to Federal Election Commission records.
In the video of prosecutors' Oct. 23 proffer session with Ellis, she said that one of Trump's top White House aides, Dan Scavino, allegedly told her "in an excited tone" at a White House Christmas party weeks after the 2020 election that "the boss is not going to leave under any circumstances."
Ellis specifically noted during the proffer session that the alleged comment from Scavino, who worked for Donald Trump for decades at the Trump Organization before joining his first presidential bid, came in response to her apologizing over the lack of success with their election challenges in court, culminating with a Supreme Court loss that indicated their ability to challenge the election "was essentially over."
"And he said to me, in a kind of excited tone, 'Well, we don't care, and we're not going to leave,'" Ellis said of the alleged Dec. 19 conversation with Scavino. "And I said, 'What do you mean?' And he said 'Well, the boss', meaning President Trump -- and everyone understood 'the boss,' that's what we all called him -- he said, 'The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.'"
Ellis continued, "And I said to him, 'Well, it doesn't quite work that way, you realize?' and he said, 'We don't care.'"
Re: (Score:2)
So on the one hand
but
Don't you see a contradiction there?
1. Did he ever stop trying to challenge the results of that election?
2. He also tried to prevent certification of those results, no least on that Jan 6th.
You're
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where it goes wrong is people's limited imaginations about who constitutes "us" rather than "them." Those limitations differ, so there are concentric spheres of connection, and the tensions between them produce conflict.
Your comment is a perfe
Re: (Score:2)
That's called sensationalism. It's how media gets attention among a variety of options, not a conspiracy to brainwash you. What is a conspiracy to brainwash you is when media says what you're saying: Ignoring the importance of a decision, downplaying the relevant issues while dramatizing nonsensical differences, and focusing instead on what doesn
Orange one siphoning cash (Score:4, Informative)
The orange one is siphoning cash from the RNC. https://www.newsweek.com/repub... [newsweek.com]
Almost like backing a life long grifter and reality tv show host was a bad idea.
"More people will vote in 2024 than in any ... (Score:2)
... previous year."
Actually, in particular in the EU, it's not sure that really that many people will vote. Electoral participation has been pretty low there in elections for the EU parliament.
A slighly different definition (Score:2)
I'd like to be enlightened on the following aspect of how democratic the USA are.
Let's assume that the political system works as expected (i.e. ignore that everything is decided by big $$).
Considering that USA uses military force, spying and monopoly of global currency to enforce its laws and promote its policies worldwide, shouldn't the whole world population participate to the USA elections for it to claim being a democracy ?
In the current situation (and again, assuming an utopia inside USA borders), it's
Re: A slighly different definition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hear it for democracy! (Score:2)
In the US, the choice for top office is between two senile old corporate blow boys. In Canada, we have a much larger choice: a couple of corporate blow boys and a bunch of other candidates so unelectable the corporations aren't even interested in buying them.
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO. "For countries in between, such as USA..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People do make serious attempts to measure democracy and rank countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Generally the UK and the USA are towards the top (most democratic), and generally the UK is slightly above the USA.
But while the author may therefore be technically correct, I agree that lumping the USA and India in the same sentence suggests an equivalence that is disingenuous.
Not looking forward to it (Score:2)
I wish our elections weren't turning into a form of, sad, entertainment. Fringe candidates, foaming at the mouth online comments, etc.
Horse race!!!! (Score:2)
But there's billions in ad revenue at stake here, so we've all got to pretend that Trump should be allowed another term in the White House
Re: (Score:2)
USA elections will be boring repeat (Score:2)
old crazy guy vs. crazy old guy.
I’m a single issue voter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is still a free country, that in the end, answers to the people.
The US has literally never been a democracy and has literally never answered to the people. Senators commit crimes daily and never face punishment. Presidents are selected, not elected. The electoral college gives people in shit states more voting power than people in states where people actually want to live. Extrajudicial rendition is still alive and well, as is civil asset forfeiture.
most of us here are happy being here
You don't know any better, because you haven't experienced anything else.
we seem to have no shortage of people trying to come here that's for sure.
Yes, we destroy their economies [quora.com] through coloniali
Re: (Score:2)
Senators were never intended to be directly elected by the people, they were originally selected by the States' legislatures.
I love that my detractors can't read. It lets me know that I'm opposing the right group of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bias any? (Score:2)
"Only people who oppose democracy in general talk like that"
Only people who oppose democracy want to talk about making it better? What the newspeak fuckery is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's fair to qualify that statement, though, in light of decades of gerrymandering and other efforts to disenfranchise segments of the people who won't vote to re-elect incumbents. It would also be fair to qualify it for countries with first-past-the-post electoral systems, so the UK isn't a great choice for the "democratic" end of the spectrum, but that bias is explicable by the publication being British.
Re: Bias any? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My interpretation of the "in between" status was that it was partially about gerrymandering and partially about - at the national level - the candidate with the most votes sometimes coming second. Have you forgotten the Trump / Hilary Clinton election already?
The UK system is also pretty dubious, "First past the post" usually disenfranchises a large minority of the electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
"there is movement to try to push back on Federal overreach"
The more recent issue is state overreach.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, we're not a democracy....more a republic.
You are confusing democracy with direct democracy.
The US is both a republic and a *representative* democracy.
The UK is both a monarchy and a representative democracy.
North Korea is both a republic and an anti-democracy.
Saudi Arabia is both a monarchy and an anti-democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is still a free country, that in the end, answers to the people.
Not to mention that the USA is the ONLY country in the history of the world to be founded upon the ideas of individual liberty. Even if it's imperfect, even if some can argue that it is "less free" than it once was, it was and remains THE symbol for "free country."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot seriously claim to be ignorant that some of those who signed that declaration were intentionally depriving others of liberty for their personal profit. Say, if you wish, that the USA was founded on the hypocritical espousal of the idea of individual liberty, but it's bullshit to claim that it was founded on actual liberty. Liberia has a much better claim to that.
Re: (Score:3)
*Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed.
There are quite a few "citations" on X. So it must be true. Also, the former POTUS said this, so it must be true. And wasn't it also mentioned on Fox News?
So there you have it: It must be true.
I'm not a big fan of postal voting either, but there have been several investigations into those claims of electoral fraud and not a single one found a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Pennsylvania was a great example of voting by mail. In 2019 the republican controlled legislature passed a law allowing voting by mail. Fast forward to 2020 and covid happens along with the election. The state goes to Biden and the legislature starts filing lawsuits saying they really didn’t mean to approve their own law and could it please be overturned. Every judge outright dismissed their case. The law is only a problem when your party loses? Coming from the fuck your feelings crowd no less.
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed.
There are quite a few "citations" on X. So it must be true. Also, the former POTUS said this, so it must be true. And wasn't it also mentioned on Fox News? So there you have it: It must be true.
I'm not a big fan of postal voting either, but there have been several investigations into those claims of electoral fraud and not a single one found a problem.
Actually, there were a couple "problems" found, but each of them were isolated single-vote cases of fraud. One was a dead person having their vote stolen by a still living spouse. I don't recall what the other was. But there's absolutely zero proof of "widespread" voter fraud. That's the wet-dream of the former White House resident and Fox News hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's absolutely zero proof of "widespread" voter fraud.
Voter fraud. You are looking in the wrong place. Fiddling with individual votes isn't going to get you the volumes needed. It has to occur at the counting stage.
If there was a football game where the referees were asked to leave the field after the third quarter and then one team went on to win, would you accept that outcome as legitimate? Probably not. Could you prove that cheating or rule violations occurred? Probably not.
It's the Bart Simpson defence. "I didn't do it. You didn't see me do it. So you c
Re:the only way to get Ranked Choice Voting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Vote for third party candidate who best reflects your own policies
2) Get a fascist instead, because you don't have ranked choice voting and your 3rd party vote has as much power as a newspaper poll, and you didn't want to vote for the "lesser evil"
3) ???
4) Ranked Choice Voting yay!
Re: (Score:2)
Stop making fun of my life!
Re: (Score:2)
You get your choice of rack for torture if you attempt to vote ever again.
Re:the only way to get Ranked Choice Voting ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is to vote like you already have it. In 2024 vote as if you had ranked choice, vote for the candidate you actually like even if they have no chance to win.
No. That's a losing strategy because plurality-takes-all does not work like ranked choice.
Consider a choice between A, B, and C. A vote for A is a vote saying NO PREFERENCE between B and C. Likewise, a vote for V says NO PREFERENCE between A and C, etc. Since plurality-takes-all voting does not allow you to make a second choice, every possible vote in a 3-way election means you have chosen one of the three one-on-one pairings to not vote upon.
Since there will be only one winner, the question is, which one-on-one pairing is the one you want to have no involvement in? This should be the one of LEAST importance to you.
The clear answer is, plurality-takes-all voting sucks. But the strategy "vote for the one you like best even if that person has no chance of winning" has the necessary consequence "do not cast a vote in the part of the election that is most important."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, primaries are critically important. In many cases, more important than the main election. Absolutely: always vote in primaries; it's important.
Primaries have the same problem, or even worse, in that they are a selection from multiple choices. "Plurality-takes-all" really only works well in two-party elections. Approval voting [electionscience.org] or ranked choice voting would be even more important to implement in primaries. (However, the US system for presidential candidates, of multiple primaries in different states, m
Re:the only way to get Ranked Choice Voting ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want ranked choice voting, you first have to get off your lazy ass and vote in primaries so that at least one major party actually wants greater democracy. Then get off your lazy ass and vote for ballot initiatives seeking it, or even start one yourself.
Telling voters to commit electoral seppuku because they don't like the options their own negligence created by default is imbecilic and evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Ranked choice voting is nothing more than a scheme to placate the plebiscite. Instead of having 49.9% of the population pissed off that their candidate lost, the leadership can pat them on the head and say, "But you voted for the winner after all." Even though it was their 19th choice out of 21. It's like getting that gold star for participating. And it gives the ruling class another four years of ignorant bliss from their subjects in which to do the same thing.
vote for the candidate you actually like
That's not really ranked choice. Ranked choice
Re: (Score:3)
Bro, neither side kept to Minsk II, Ukraine or the Russia/separatists, both sides were still engaging in fighting.
Also, you know who is responsible for every single one of the body bags? Russia for invading in both 2014 and 2022. If they don't do that then there are no body bags. You don't get to weasel out of taking responsibility for the completely and utterly unjustified invasion in the first place/
This is like you taking a pot shot at me in the dark and if i hit back you start to claim i am perpetuat
Re: (Score:3)
Minsk was not a "treaty" it was a "ceasefire" so that means a pause to fighting in which case de facto gives each side more time to prepare for any future conflict. I would go back just a bit further and ask why was there a need for a ceasefire agreement in the first place? Because Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014 without provocation.
Also nothing in that article talks about "deception", what did Putin think it was? Also Putin obviously used the time to also build up forces culminating in a larger dir
Re:I hope killing off Ukrainians was worth it (Score:5, Interesting)
1) to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2) to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
3) to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind
Now then, when you're done lying through your rotten teeth, tell us how Russia violating all three listed items means Ukraine has to agree to anything. Russia is the one who violated the agreement, Russia is the one waging unprovoked war against Ukraine, Russia is the one wholly at fault.
As to your question, yes, it is worth it to see hundreds of thousands of Russians die or be mangled for its invasion of Ukraine. The more the merrier. If the U.S. wants to send another $100 billion in weapons to Ukraine to defend itself, that would be a nice start.
It will be a glorious day when the Kerch Bridge comes down. The mass surrender of Russians will be legendary.
Re: (Score:3)
Leave me out of this.