I want to know what left-wing source has put out anything close to the current right-wing talk radio piece about Scalia being taken out by Obama so he could put a liberal in SCOTUS.
There's no comparison. The right-wing news media talking points are being echoed by the National Enquirer and Globe. By the tabloids who talk about bat children and discovering Noah's Ark intact.
I think Cheney 'accidentally' shooting that guy on the camping trip had very similar claims.
Bush being accused of being behind 9/11 also comes to mind.
Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, Morituri Sum
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
As someone who lives in NC, that new District 4 is still bullshit.
It contains Orange County - the location of UNC and perhaps the most liberal county in the state. Then it snakes along I-40 to grab central Raleigh, with the areas largest black population.
It evades the northern and southern parts of Wake county (where I live) that mostly consists of the upper-middle class white tech workers who commute to RTP. That district is the one where Clay Aiken ran last election and lost to Renee Ellmers.
To be fair, that second map is also shit, just less obviously so. So maybe it's goose shit instead of horse shit. As long as the body drawing up the boundaries is partisan (and I'm not sure how to make it non-partisan) the resulting map is going to favor one side or another. This particular one is also designed to maintain the current 10-3 split in the House of Representatives. They aren't even trying to hide that fact, it has been blatantly stated by at least one of the involved people.
I don't know if there is a way to solve this issue. Should a court be able to mandate that the makeup of the state delegation to the House of Representatives should mirror the makeup of that state's electorate? I haven't yet settled on an answer to that question, what does everybody else here think?
To be fair, that second map is also shit, just less obviously so. So maybe it's goose shit instead of horse shit. As long as the body drawing up the boundaries is partisan (and I'm not sure how to make it non-partisan) the resulting map is going to favor one side or another. This particular one is also designed to maintain the current 10-3 split in the House of Representatives. They aren't even trying to hide that fact, it has been blatantly stated by at least one of the involved people.
I don't know if there is a way to solve this issue. Should a court be able to mandate that the makeup of the state delegation to the House of Representatives should mirror the makeup of that state's electorate? I haven't yet settled on an answer to that question, what does everybody else here think?
North Carolina would make a great test case on redistricting for a new Supreme Court. It's a state where Democrats have consistently won the majority of votes for statehouse races, but the composition of the districts means that the GOP holds both houses of the legislature by a healthy margin. To make it even more blatant, the GOP has begun carving up the districts of major cities (Greensboro) and countries (Wake) to ensure the same result.
If I wanted to base a court case around the question of whether politicians have the right to redraw districts in any way possible to gain partisan advantage, I doubt you'll find a more blatant example of the practice than in modern North Carolina.
Given the actualities of US politics, I don't think a non-algorithmic approach that allows for majority-minority districts actually improves the representation of minorities. I'm certain it doesn't on an issues stand point, if it helps on an actual X number of [minority] representatives, I'd be surprised.
Given the actualities of US politics, I don't think a non-algorithmic approach that allows for majority-minority districts actually improves the representation of minorities. I'm certain it doesn't on an issues stand point, if it helps on an actual X number of [minority] representatives, I'd be surprised.
Creates majority-minority districts.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As someone who lives in NC, that new District 4 is still bullshit.
It contains Orange County - the location of UNC and perhaps the most liberal county in the state. Then it snakes along I-40 to grab central Raleigh, with the areas largest black population.
It evades the northern and southern parts of Wake county (where I live) that mostly consists of the upper-middle class white tech workers who commute to RTP. That district is the one where Clay Aiken ran last election and lost to Renee Ellmers.
Yes, well.
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
That first map is just horseshit.
That assumes the second map is actually better, rather than just looking better. Based on quotes by lawmakers, I doubt it's much of an improvement.
I'd rather they shoot down this map and make them do it right. Another election with the terrible map is better than several elections with the nearly as terrible map.
Am I the only one that finds the caucus system the most outright piece of corruption in the system? Hillary announced like over a year or two ago that she had enough delegates to secure the nomination. To be able to say that so early before we knew who was in the race and where they were in the polls just sounds so much like 'fuck voters, I already bribed the 24 people who matter to the process'.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Gerrymandering has been used in the past to create minority-majority districts for the express purpose of creating minority representation. Do we regard that as a good? If so, how do we preserve it?
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Am I the only one that finds the caucus system the most outright piece of corruption in the system? Hillary announced like over a year or two ago that she had enough delegates to secure the nomination. To be able to say that so early before we knew who was in the race and where they were in the polls just sounds so much like 'fuck voters, I already bribed the 24 people who matter to the process'.
Are you talking about the delegate/ superdelegate and not the caucus system?
Hillary still doesn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination, even counting her superdelegates. She definitely didn't 2 years ago.
i'm not sure where you're getting your information.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Gerrymandering has been used in the past to create minority-majority districts for the express purpose of creating minority representation. Do we regard that as a good? If so, how do we preserve it?
In pretty much all of those cases it was used as a means to eliminate minority power, even while giving them representation. You create one or two minority dominate districts, but when the other 17 are all white and conservative those representatives are essentially both token and powerless.
Florida is a great example of this:
This was district 5. Every area it goes through is predominantly minority and very dense population areas. If these were done by geography, all of the surrounding districts would likely be pushed left considerably and their elections would be frequently competitive (which is already looking to be the case after 5 was considered illegal and we were recently forced to redistrict). Yes, with 5 there is a minority seat in the house, but there was much more likely a chance of 3-5 districts having a minority seat if things were equal.
Gerrymandering has been used in the past to create minority-majority districts for the express purpose of creating minority representation. Do we regard that as a good? If so, how do we preserve it?
I think they just need to place some sort of limit on Gerrymandering, so that a gerrymandered district cannot be stretched across what would otherwise be multiple districts.
Fucked if I can figure out a way to properly contextualize then codify that.
So, personally, I would rather Gerrymandering go the way of the dinosaur, and have districts be hub and spoke from the middle population centers.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
gerrymandering will always be a problem, because it's good for the only people who can make it go away
that said, the way to stop it isn't to legislate it directly out of existence, it's to switch to a method of representation that makes it irrelevant, such as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (and also instant run-off voting, for that matter)
gerrymandering will always be a problem, because it's good for the only people who can make it go away
that said, the way to stop it isn't to legislate it directly out of existence, it's to switch to a method of representation that makes it irrelevant, such as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (and also instant run-off voting, for that matter)
And MMP will never happen either, because the only people that can switch us over to it would lose a lot of power by doing so.
gerrymandering will always be a problem, because it's good for the only people who can make it go away
that said, the way to stop it isn't to legislate it directly out of existence, it's to switch to a method of representation that makes it irrelevant, such as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (and also instant run-off voting, for that matter)
And MMP will never happen either, because the only people that can switch us over to it would lose a lot of power by doing so.
The last time I heard of it used anywhere locally... it was "too confusing". This was used to advocate getting rid of it (as opposed to educating people because fucking hell it's not that complicated).
The thing with changing gerrymandering is that a lot of times even minority party membera benefit from it. Like in the case of NCs 10-3 split, redistricting would make the 10 republican districts more competitive, but also the 3 democratic onea. Which is good for the democratic party as a whole, but may be very bad for those 3 specific democrats. So in a lot of cases even though the party might gain, none of the individual congressmen will want to push much against it.
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Vermont and West Virginia also now have automatic voter registration laws like Oregon and California. Alaska will be voting on it via ballot in August. Hopefully it's picking up momentum and will pass in more states. This is something people can contact their state representatives for (mine actually was a cosponsor of a bill for this in Iowa that didn't pass this time around).
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Now if we can get republican states to stop purging democrats from their rolls that might make a difference.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
All of the caucus states were based on Democratic turnout only. If they only used the dem votes, but checked against the total population, I would expect the numbers to be far lower than average. Especially in places like Alaska, where Republicans rule.
All of the caucus states were based on Democratic turnout only. If they only used the dem votes, but checked against the total population, I would expect the numbers to be far lower than average. Especially in places like Alaska, where Republicans rule.
In the '08 general, Minnesota was first in the country at 78%. Here they're 15.7%. And it's a solidly blue state.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
you keep using this word "flagbearer"
why does it not matter that they're helping choose who will be their next president?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
No, it doesn't make it false. You want to be an independent, fine. Then you should be willing to accept that you chose to opt out of decisions internal to a party. If you're really concerned about the direction a party is going in, then you should be a member.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
you keep using this word "flagbearer"
why does it not matter that they're helping choose who will be their next president?
Because that's what the primary is for - to choose who will be the party's flagbearer in the general election.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
you keep using this word "flagbearer"
why does it not matter that they're helping choose who will be their next president?
Because that's what the primary is for - to choose who will be the party's flagbearer in the general election.
so it's just a coincidence that they're choosing our next president?
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Posts
I think Cheney 'accidentally' shooting that guy on the camping trip had very similar claims.
Bush being accused of being behind 9/11 also comes to mind.
Yes, well.
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
That first map is just horseshit.
I don't know if there is a way to solve this issue. Should a court be able to mandate that the makeup of the state delegation to the House of Representatives should mirror the makeup of that state's electorate? I haven't yet settled on an answer to that question, what does everybody else here think?
North Carolina would make a great test case on redistricting for a new Supreme Court. It's a state where Democrats have consistently won the majority of votes for statehouse races, but the composition of the districts means that the GOP holds both houses of the legislature by a healthy margin. To make it even more blatant, the GOP has begun carving up the districts of major cities (Greensboro) and countries (Wake) to ensure the same result.
If I wanted to base a court case around the question of whether politicians have the right to redraw districts in any way possible to gain partisan advantage, I doubt you'll find a more blatant example of the practice than in modern North Carolina.
Straight lines and a maximum height/width ratio would be a start. As well as following existing political divisions.
Also, IMO, they should be drawn based on population AND eligible voters. There's currently a case on just that.
Creates majority-minority districts.
That assumes the second map is actually better, rather than just looking better. Based on quotes by lawmakers, I doubt it's much of an improvement.
I'd rather they shoot down this map and make them do it right. Another election with the terrible map is better than several elections with the nearly as terrible map.
And I think this illustrates the issues we have in balancing power and access urban/rural divide.
Are you talking about the delegate/ superdelegate and not the caucus system?
Hillary still doesn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination, even counting her superdelegates. She definitely didn't 2 years ago.
i'm not sure where you're getting your information.
In pretty much all of those cases it was used as a means to eliminate minority power, even while giving them representation. You create one or two minority dominate districts, but when the other 17 are all white and conservative those representatives are essentially both token and powerless.
Florida is a great example of this:
This was district 5. Every area it goes through is predominantly minority and very dense population areas. If these were done by geography, all of the surrounding districts would likely be pushed left considerably and their elections would be frequently competitive (which is already looking to be the case after 5 was considered illegal and we were recently forced to redistrict). Yes, with 5 there is a minority seat in the house, but there was much more likely a chance of 3-5 districts having a minority seat if things were equal.
I think they just need to place some sort of limit on Gerrymandering, so that a gerrymandered district cannot be stretched across what would otherwise be multiple districts.
Fucked if I can figure out a way to properly contextualize then codify that.
So, personally, I would rather Gerrymandering go the way of the dinosaur, and have districts be hub and spoke from the middle population centers.
MWO: Adamski
that said, the way to stop it isn't to legislate it directly out of existence, it's to switch to a method of representation that makes it irrelevant, such as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (and also instant run-off voting, for that matter)
And MMP will never happen either, because the only people that can switch us over to it would lose a lot of power by doing so.
The last time I heard of it used anywhere locally... it was "too confusing". This was used to advocate getting rid of it (as opposed to educating people because fucking hell it's not that complicated).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
In the '08 general, Minnesota was first in the country at 78%. Here they're 15.7%. And it's a solidly blue state.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
you keep using this word "flagbearer"
why does it not matter that they're helping choose who will be their next president?
No, it doesn't make it false. You want to be an independent, fine. Then you should be willing to accept that you chose to opt out of decisions internal to a party. If you're really concerned about the direction a party is going in, then you should be a member.
Because that's what the primary is for - to choose who will be the party's flagbearer in the general election.
so it's just a coincidence that they're choosing our next president?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
You can! By joining the party!