US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

---

It is an fascinating set of questions, and maybe the solution is a 'one-size fits all'? I do wonder why there are so many different ways of voting, and also I once saw a ballot paper and it looked like the menu from a fast food joint. Voting should be a pleasure, not an ordeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...=1590458960924

---

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

Either this is all just election gunfire, or the November election, if it happens, could be the most chaotic in US history -allegations made in advance by the party anxious it is going to lose? Or a full-spectrum assault on Democracy as you used to know it, to make the process itself appear invalid?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...g-restrictions

Can the President shut down social media? You have to wonder why Twitter is still going if Hillary Clinton can be pilloried as a 'skank'. The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-conservatives

:iagree:

Three things happened over the past week that probably ruined Amy Klobuchar's chances of being picked as Biden's running mate and none of them were of her doing:

1. Biden's comments about black voters.
2. Black activists warning Biden not to pick her because of how poorly she did with black voters. Apparently they want it to be Warren.
3. The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, a city in her home state.

I'm still hoping she gets picked because it will help balance out the ticket regionally. I also think because of Biden's age, I think you need a candidate that's going to inspire faith in the voters that the country will be in good hands if something were to happen to him. Finally, given how she fared in the debates, I think she will do well in one against Mike Pence.

Thanks for your thoughts, the oddschecker is linked below. Michelle Obama s 6th favourite though I think we know by now she has no interest in the job...so its Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, then Val Demings who is a new name to me, as is the 8th placed Catherine Masto.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...tic-vp-nominee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?[/URL]

---

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.

---

If Fox took an honest line it probably would make a difference though it's interesting that at one point Trump had gotten so fed up with Chris Wallace occasionally being honest that he threatened to stop watching Fox and his supporters were looking for other outlets like OANN. I frequently see memes that show what CNN is broadcasting simultaneous with what MSNBC and Fox broadcast. It will be covid-19, state police in Minneapolis, and Chef Somebody making a steak sandwich respectively. These graphics do make Fox look like State tv, though Trump's control is only indirect, as Fox is there simply to boost the Republican party and make money presumably.

Today he tweeted that "when the looting starts the shooting starts" and twitter put a warning on his tweet that it glorified violence. He clearly wants to abolish whatever parts of the first amendment he can and is now having some tantrum about whether he can sanction twitter.

The fact is, he will do whatever he can get away with to consolidate his power. If Fox doesn't want to stop catering to his every whim and impulse and the Republican party doesn't want to stop him, the slide to authoritarianism will continue and right now it seems to be accelerating.

Actually in this case what he wants to do is abolish the separation of powers. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protects websites that host the views of third parties so that they are not liable for what third parties say. He keeps saying "revoke Section 230" but of course that would be a legislative change and not something he can do with any of his article ii powers. In a sense it does implicate the first amendment because it would be the government seeking a change in the law to punish speech by a particular company.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28...itter-facebook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

---

Could you imagine trying to get someone to vote on a weekend during the middle of football season.

Most of the times that I have voted, its been either before I went into work or coming home from it. So there are ways to get around Election Day not being a national holiday or on a weekend. If you request a day off from work, most employers will honor that request. So just do the same for Election Day.