If anyone has objections to automatic voter registration or moving to voting-by-mail systems, I have a question for you: why do you not give the benefit of the doubt these systems, but give the benefit of the doubt to the voting restrictions put into place by GOP legislatures when their admitted goals is to decrease the number of voters who tend to lean Democrat?
Right now a holiday doesn't mean that much to many workers. If you make election day a holiday it doesn't actually mean that the poorest will have it off.
I'd prefer a "shut your damn business down" day. Essential workers only (medical, law enforcement etc) all other businesses must close or demonstrate a public benefit (supermarket perhaps) and pay people at 5x their normal rate. Add in no excuse needed absentee voting and early voting and automatic registration and most barriers would be gone.
In this scenario, what is the point of registration?
Registration serves exactly two legit purposes: identifying which district a voter goes in, and verification they're eligible before the vote. So, those.
OK.
1) identification of the district residence needs some non-zero level of confidence that the information is accurate. How should this be accomplished without erecting barriers to voting? You can't just say "automatic!" and have a useful district residency roll - a process needs to exist to validate accuracy. What should that process be, and how does it avoid disenfranchisement?
2) verification of eligibility needs some proof of identity - I can't know if you're eligible to vote unless I know who you are. How do you create this verification of identity with lower barriers than current methods, while maintaining accuracy?
In short, the system needs voters to prove who they are, and prove where they live. That sounds like two notable barriers! How do we accurately do this without disenfranchisement? I stress 'accurately' because if we don't care about accuracy, a case needs to be made for why we should bother at all, and of course the reverse is true: assuming we do care about eligibility at all, we should care about it enough to have accuracy in the determination.
You can do 1. near automatically already. Any time someone interacts with a government agency and updates their address, ask to update voter information.
2. Is pretty much the same. Slightly harder but not much.
You super can't do 1 automatically! Lack of district-level information sharing and privacy concerns make it very challenging. Not to mention it could be years between moments when I interact with any government agency apart from the IRS. If I don't own a car, it would be optimal for me not to interact with any government agencies for years at a stretch.
2. requires $$$$ to do it now, which is a barrier.
You notice I said near automatically? And voting records should not be held at district level anyway.
You can do 2 without requiring anything from the voter $ wise. Hell just cross check against something when you do 1.
For 1: it's super far from automatic though! There's no reason for any state agency to know where you live if you have a job, aren't driving, and don't pay state income tax, or if you moved to a different state altogether. Getting to a point where district-level accurate data is collected in the cases where it's not currently, shared in order to take the burden off the voter, would be a long distance from where we are. But OK, we build a system that tracks address information for citizens who otherwise don't need government assistance, and we guarantee its accuracy behind the scenes. Maybe we leverage postal data? Some new system of accurately tracking and updating the location of voters rather than relying on them to produce proof themselves.
For 2 you either need the voter to pay for an ID and expect them to keep the information up to date, or you need to provide them free and you need to flag and update address information every time it changes without intervention from the citizen, and deliver that ID to them. Also non-trivial and nonexistent right now.
This is a large new program for tracking and identifying the citizenry nationwide, wherever they go, but it does shift the burden away from the voter to demonstrate they're eligible in a specific district.
#BREAKING: @Governor_LePage tells me he will 'PROBABLY NOT' certify the results of today's election, will 'leave it up to the courts to decide'—calling ranked-choice voting the 'most horrific thing in the world.' #NEWSCENTERmaine
Zack Blanchard is a local reporter for the NBC affiliate.
Wow - how contemptuous of democracy do you have to be, LePage?
Don't even think the votes are counted yet. This is him preemptively saying he is ignoring the election. Maine's legislators should start impeaching him immediately.
Don't even think the votes are counted yet. This is him preemptively saying he is ignoring the election. Maine's legislators should start impeaching him immediately.
I know I am prone to bouts of being chicken little, but this seems real bad for democracy right here. I Don't like the precedence set by a legislator just straight ignoring an election.
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
'Probably not' being chicken-shit words of spinelessness stance aside, I imagine it would be a very short wait, as it would get bumped to the top of the docket, and when asked what legal reasoning they had to not certify the results, Maine's lawyers would just spread their hands and go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ranked choice/instant runoff voting is where you state your preference for all the candidates on the ballot. Then, once the votes are tallied, if no single candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the lowest total is removed, and their votes reallocated to the person who was next on the preference list on the ballot. Repeat until a candidate has a clear majority.
The system was clearly proposed and voted in because of LePage, who won office with pluralities (his first being sub-40%!) He knows this is a rebuke of him, so he's being a petty goose.
IRV encourages third party support while removing their spoiler effect. It seems like the only way we'll ever escape the two-party polarization of our politics.
IRV encourages third party support while removing their spoiler effect. It seems like the only way we'll ever escape the two-party polarization of our politics.
Just imagine the possibilities. Finally a way to write in Harambe while still casting a vote that matters.
IRV encourages third party support while removing their spoiler effect. It seems like the only way we'll ever escape the two-party polarization of our politics.
Just imagine the possibilities. Finally a way to write in Harambe while still casting a vote that matters.
Or even accidentally electing that dead Ape! Sky's the limit!
But it would have flipped 2000, 2016, and possibly 92 (if you're pitching a Clinton-hater). That's not nothing.
(In my head it also breaks up the Evangelist-Libertarian bloc in the GOP)
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
So people who live in urban areas should count for less?
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
Yes, I'm fine with that. I should actually calculate it out, but the current system allows I think a mere 15-20% of the population to be enough votes to win.
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Electoral college means your okay with the vote of someone in California being worth 1/3rd a vote of someone from Wyoming..
If low population areas want more representation in a democratic society, they can always use their local governments to improve quality of life so that people actually want to live there.
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
I mean, we probably should redefine our utterly arbitrary senate districts at some point. It's kind of hard to square why New England gets fourteen senators to California's two.
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
My opinion is that having your ID database looking like a genealogy poster proving you're Charlemagne's ancestor is a bad thing from an IT perspective. Some cleanup and data validation is necessary from time to time. How we approach that process ought to be one that inconveniences voters as little as possible.
“It’s an inconvenience for IT personnel” is not a compelling argument for purging the voting rolls
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
I mean, yeah pretty much. I’d rather that than continuing to give rural areas a level of power massively incommensurate with their population. Like the 3/5 “compromise” this was put in to appease the South and it’s high time we stop believing in Jefferson’s yeoman farmer fantasy.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Electoral college means your okay with the vote of someone in California being worth 1/3rd a vote of someone from Wyoming..
This is not correct, though it's repeated so often it's accepted as truth.
The votes of the people in California have an entirely equal value to one another when deciding who California will support for President. The same is true for Wyoming or Delaware. Then, each state is gets a number of votes equal to Senators + Representatives, so a baseline + weight according to population. This is a fair weighting.
Comparing the "value of a vote" of someone in Wyoming vs someone in California disregards the very idea of a State. It's a red herring used to support the idea of a national vote, which instead of recognizing sovereignty within the republic to select its leader and creating a contest in which a "50-State campaign" might be a viable strategy, would relegate us to a contest over who can convince the most voters in the most densely populated media markets with the rest of the nation ignored.
If you're upset that Rhode Island and Texas have equal sovereignty within our republic, there are larger issues to tackle than how we elect the President.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Removing the electoral college is the the same as asking the 10 largest metro areas to determine the Presidency with no input from the rest of the nation. If you're cool with that, ok.
Electoral college means your okay with the vote of someone in California being worth 1/3rd a vote of someone from Wyoming..
This is not correct, though it's repeated so often it's accepted as truth.
The votes of the people in California have an entirely equal value to one another when deciding who California will support for President. The same is true for Wyoming or Delaware. Then, each state is gets a number of votes equal to Senators + Representatives, so a baseline + weight according to population. This is a fair weighting.
Comparing the "value of a vote" of someone in Wyoming vs someone in California disregards the very idea of a State. It's a red herring used to support the idea of a national vote, which instead of recognizing sovereignty within the republic to select its leader and creating a contest in which a "50-State campaign" might be a viable strategy, would relegate us to a contest over who can convince the most voters in the most densely populated media markets with the rest of the nation ignored.
If you're upset that Rhode Island and Texas have equal sovereignty within our republic, there are larger issues to tackle than how we elect the President.
I want to see the math where this is fair weighting.
The number of people in California per rep is like 7 times higher than Wyoming. Texas isn't much better.
There's no possible way that can be squared to be "equal."
NPV is a stalking horse for eliminating Statehood. At least around here folks will just come right out and admit that the slippery slope on this issue is real, and they'd prefer to go as far down as they can manage.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
It’s that “each state has the same number of senators regardless of population” thing that really skews it, and I think you know that.
I’d be fine with keeping the electoral college if we made it based strictly on population and didn’t give credit for senators.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
For 1: it's super far from automatic though! There's no reason for any state agency to know where you live if you have a job, aren't driving, and don't pay state income tax, or if you moved to a different state altogether. Getting to a point where district-level accurate data is collected in the cases where it's not currently, shared in order to take the burden off the voter, would be a long distance from where we are. But OK, we build a system that tracks address information for citizens who otherwise don't need government assistance, and we guarantee its accuracy behind the scenes. Maybe we leverage postal data? Some new system of accurately tracking and updating the location of voters rather than relying on them to produce proof themselves.
For 2 you either need the voter to pay for an ID and expect them to keep the information up to date, or you need to provide them free and you need to flag and update address information every time it changes without intervention from the citizen, and deliver that ID to them. Also non-trivial and nonexistent right now.
This is a large new program for tracking and identifying the citizenry nationwide, wherever they go, but it does shift the burden away from the voter to demonstrate they're eligible in a specific district.
Zack Blanchard is a local reporter for the NBC affiliate.
Wow - how contemptuous of democracy do you have to be, LePage?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Who won doesn't matter - the ranked choice system was instituted directly because of LePage, who only won pluralities.
I know I am prone to bouts of being chicken little, but this seems real bad for democracy right here. I Don't like the precedence set by a legislator just straight ignoring an election.
He's been doing it with Medicaid expansion for a while now. Court just told him to fuck off and implement the ballot initiative like a week ago.
No he can just keep suing to waste time.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Ranked choice/instant runoff voting is where you state your preference for all the candidates on the ballot. Then, once the votes are tallied, if no single candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the lowest total is removed, and their votes reallocated to the person who was next on the preference list on the ballot. Repeat until a candidate has a clear majority.
The system was clearly proposed and voted in because of LePage, who won office with pluralities (his first being sub-40%!) He knows this is a rebuke of him, so he's being a petty goose.
Not really, since it's really the electoral college that's the problem
There were enough 3rd party votes in many states last time to swing them. No idea who they have gone to but IRV would have affected the election.
lets get rid of that too while we're at it
The dream!
IRV encourages third party support while removing their spoiler effect. It seems like the only way we'll ever escape the two-party polarization of our politics.
Just imagine the possibilities. Finally a way to write in Harambe while still casting a vote that matters.
Or even accidentally electing that dead Ape! Sky's the limit!
But it would have flipped 2000, 2016, and possibly 92 (if you're pitching a Clinton-hater). That's not nothing.
(In my head it also breaks up the Evangelist-Libertarian bloc in the GOP)
Might as well go ahead and delete all the state borders while we're at it...
So people who live in urban areas should count for less?
Yes, I'm fine with that. I should actually calculate it out, but the current system allows I think a mere 15-20% of the population to be enough votes to win.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Electoral college means your okay with the vote of someone in California being worth 1/3rd a vote of someone from Wyoming..
Not people in metropolitan areas!
"We should have a system of government where THE PEOPLE DECIDE.... err, unless they're icky liberals from the metro areas...."
I mean, we probably should redefine our utterly arbitrary senate districts at some point. It's kind of hard to square why New England gets fourteen senators to California's two.
1 vote per person isn't a bug.
With their demon-facts and satanilogic.
I mean, yeah pretty much. I’d rather that than continuing to give rural areas a level of power massively incommensurate with their population. Like the 3/5 “compromise” this was put in to appease the South and it’s high time we stop believing in Jefferson’s yeoman farmer fantasy.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
This is not correct, though it's repeated so often it's accepted as truth.
The votes of the people in California have an entirely equal value to one another when deciding who California will support for President. The same is true for Wyoming or Delaware. Then, each state is gets a number of votes equal to Senators + Representatives, so a baseline + weight according to population. This is a fair weighting.
Comparing the "value of a vote" of someone in Wyoming vs someone in California disregards the very idea of a State. It's a red herring used to support the idea of a national vote, which instead of recognizing sovereignty within the republic to select its leader and creating a contest in which a "50-State campaign" might be a viable strategy, would relegate us to a contest over who can convince the most voters in the most densely populated media markets with the rest of the nation ignored.
If you're upset that Rhode Island and Texas have equal sovereignty within our republic, there are larger issues to tackle than how we elect the President.
I want to see the math where this is fair weighting.
The number of people in California per rep is like 7 times higher than Wyoming. Texas isn't much better.
There's no possible way that can be squared to be "equal."
I’d be fine with keeping the electoral college if we made it based strictly on population and didn’t give credit for senators.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades