Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Compare the divide: 1960s-70s to modern time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GVChamp
    replied
    I don't think a paper ballot is very hard, and I don't think Rank Choice Voting is all that hard, but I also don't get confused by my relatively basic taxes that seem to befuddle so many Americans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    Just to be clear, we are talking about "the average voter," right?
    The ones who gave us He Who Should Not Be Named, rather than the most qualified candidate in six elections, right?
    Those folks?
    Yep, those folk. The same one who fill out ballot papers much, much more complex than a standard ranked choice ballot paper almost every time they vote. Most Australians would recoil in horror at the ballot papers Americans routinely fill out.

    If it makes you feel any better, if they don't fill it out correctly the vote is invalid.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

    It isn't that hard to understand, ...
    Just to be clear, we are talking about "the average voter," right?
    The ones who gave us He Who Should Not Be Named, rather than the most qualified candidate in six elections, right?
    Those folks?

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post

    in any case, absent a serious major breakthrough on HR1/SR1/filibuster, all of this is moot. I don't think Democrats understand how much danger they're in -- with the various state GOP shenanigans going on now, starting in 2 years' time, Democratic political power is about to get a serious gut-punch.
    That's what I don't understand. And they especially can't lose the House. You can't trust the McCarthys or Republican lawmakers in the House to do the lawful, Constitutional thing anymore. Does anyone not see a scenario, despite how far fetched it would've seemed even 2 years ago, where a Trumpublican-ran House won't certify an election loss in 2024? I just don't see how it doesn't come to that considering the party has consolidated around Trump.

    And even before that, it's going to be vindictiveness to get the Democrats back for impeaching Trump... twice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Biden get impeached for something no matter how far fetched the false equivalence goes. The Cult of Trump has no shame. And that's a dangerous attribute.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    It deals with one of the bigger issues - primaries pushing candidates to the right/left.
    much of this has to do with the US parties disintegrating as "gatekeepers", especially the Republican Party -- but, increasingly, the Dems as well.

    simply put, the party apparatus/elite simply don't have the legitimacy to tamp down the extremists anymore (see: Liz Cheney, Paul Ryan, Bushes, Romney, Boehner).

    the parties also don't control the funding spigots like they used to either, and in fact on the GOP side, disobeying the party leadership tends to -bring in- money.

    ranked choice voting helps, but can't resolve the situation by itself.

    in any case, absent a serious major breakthrough on HR1/SR1/filibuster, all of this is moot. I don't think Democrats understand how much danger they're in -- with the various state GOP shenanigans going on now, starting in 2 years' time, Democratic political power is about to get a serious gut-punch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    Do you really think the average voter would understand ranked choice, and not simply be told how to "vote strategically" by slimy political operatives?
    It isn't that hard to understand, especially if people are used to dealing wit hballot papers that have multiple federal, state & local races on them. Many/most would probably just follow the party 'how to vote' card.

    Having spent my entire adult life voting in what you would call a ranked choice system (we call it preferential voting) I'm not convinced that the more common form would be quite the game changer I see it referred to as. That is why I liked the 'final five' idea I saw recently. It deals with one of the bigger issues - primaries pushing candidates to the right/left.

    Gehl designed a solution to repair the perverse incentives created by party primaries and plurality voting. Gehl's innovation, which she has termed Final Five Voting, combines top-five primaries with instant runoffs in the general election. The change 1) ends party primaries and creates open, nonpartisan primaries that send the top five vote-getters to the general election and 2) ends plurality voting with ranked-choice instant runoffs for those five candidates in the general election so a winner is chosen by a majority of voters.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...cs_145613.html

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post

    ranked choice voting would help, as would independent map drawers, etc.

    i'd actually argue that these days the media is not the primary driver anymore. look at the people fleeing Fox News for OANN and Newsmax. it's self-affirmation masquerading as news sources.
    Do you really think the average voter would understand ranked choice, and not simply be told how to "vote strategically" by slimy political operatives?

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    Originally posted by statquo View Post

    bipartisanship =/= weakness

    I don't even know how you can overcome that line of thinking without overhauling the electoral system. Politicians are gearing up for their next election cycle the moment an election is over. As you said, there's no incentive to work bipartisan. And of course that's fed by 24/7 media, so that needs a change as well. Tough situation.
    The post-war era is an entirely different beast from the current era. The parties had a lot more overlap. Congressional elections were much less nationalized. The Parties were comparatively stronger. There was more pork to buy votes. Ike was extremely popular, and LBJ was extremely effective. A Democratic majority in both Houses was almost a given.

    Also, the US had just gotten out of a World War and was in a Cold War. The lack of an external enemy probably has a major factor in the US indulging in extreme partisanship.

    You are not going to put the genie back in the bottle on media or Facebook or anything else. Might as well try to un-invent the printing press.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    I don't even know how you can overcome that line of thinking without overhauling the electoral system. Politicians are gearing up for their next election cycle the moment an election is over. As you said, there's no incentive to work bipartisan. And of course that's fed by 24/7 media, so that needs a change as well. Tough situation.
    ranked choice voting would help, as would independent map drawers, etc.

    i'd actually argue that these days the media is not the primary driver anymore. look at the people fleeing Fox News for OANN and Newsmax. it's self-affirmation masquerading as news sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by statquo View Post

    bipartisanship =/= weakness

    I don't even know how you can overcome that line of thinking without overhauling the electoral system. Politicians are gearing up for their next election cycle the moment an election is over. As you said, there's no incentive to work bipartisan. And of course that's fed by 24/7 media, so that needs a change as well. Tough situation.
    I tell you how....overturn Citizen's United and get dark money out of politics.

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    the political sorting has been so complete that there is little political incentive for bipartisanship, especially for the GOP.

    in any case, one thing to note: bipartisanship =/= better policy.
    bipartisanship =/= weakness

    I don't even know how you can overcome that line of thinking without overhauling the electoral system. Politicians are gearing up for their next election cycle the moment an election is over. As you said, there's no incentive to work bipartisan. And of course that's fed by 24/7 media, so that needs a change as well. Tough situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    the political sorting has been so complete that there is little political incentive for bipartisanship, especially for the GOP.

    in any case, one thing to note: bipartisanship =/= better policy.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    If you want to a quick and dirty comparison of the partisanship, you can try thinking of how difficult it would be for a presidential candidate to get 60% of the vote now. That happened 64 and 72, but it hasn't happened in the current political environment. Congressional majorities are nonexistent compared to that era, and bi-partisanship on bills similar to the Great Society is essentially unthinkable.

    Rather uncharitable way of comparing the eras, though.
    As many will recall, the popular vote still doesn't count for a bucket of warm spit in American politics.
    Presidents who did not receive at least 60% of the electoral vote include He Who Should Not Be Named, GW Bush (twice), Jimmy Carter, Nixon ('68), and JFK.

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    If you want to a quick and dirty comparison of the partisanship, you can try thinking of how difficult it would be for a presidential candidate to get 60% of the vote now. That happened 64 and 72, but it hasn't happened in the current political environment. Congressional majorities are nonexistent compared to that era, and bi-partisanship on bills similar to the Great Society is essentially unthinkable.

    Rather uncharitable way of comparing the eras, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I so stand corrected. My only recollection with the History Channel was when they first started broadcasting before I moved out to the rural area. I cut down my TV a lot due to the high cost of satellite reception back then. Didn't know they fell that far into the rabbit hole
    History Channel was the gold standard at one time. Same with A&E.

    They are now HORRIBLE....unwatchable. They did produce a very good 3 part biography of US Grant this year...here's hope they have pulled out of the dive.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X