Eric Black at MinnPost said it all... We Suck at Voting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(325)
-
▼
October
(31)
- We Are Where We Want To Be
- Policy and Intentions
- Halloween Costume Etiquette
- MN Political Ads
- Fact Checks
- Facebook and Tribes
- MN Buffer Strips
- Is Trump's Behavior Driving Violence?
- Yes281 Reminder
- Scientists Apparently Know All
- Politics and Psychology
- The Hidden Tribes of America
- What to Do about Saudi Arabia?
- What is McConnel Thinking?
- Trump On 60 Minutes
- We Suck at Voting
- Economics of Childcare
- The Challenges of Africa and AI
- Beware The Dark Side of the Force
- Small Changes and Climate Balance
- SCOTUS Is Too Powerful?
- Erik Paulsen's Ads Annoy Me
- Climate Change Update
- Porn Star Teaches Consent
- Justices and Tribal Divide
- Is Kavanaugh Helping GOP?
- Kavanaugh Odds Looking Better
- Trump is Not a Self Made Man
- Reds and Blues Sit Down
- Self Checkout is Terrible?
- NAFTA vs USMCA?
-
▼
October
(31)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
31 comments:
I think our "democracy" would fare far better if we had LESS voter participation, or at least fewer uninformed and misinformed voters. That's what is really appalling, in my opinion-- the number of people who cannot name either of their two US Senators (and there are a LOT of them), but whose vote for US Senator counts nonetheless.
It's more elections we are bad at. How can I tell voters their vote matters when Hillary won the popular vote by three million and still lost the election?
--Hiram
Jerry,
I am pretty sure that those who can not name those Senators are the same ones who do not go to the polls.
I am more concerned about tribal voters who do not think and just go along with the rest of the cows.
Hiram,
Again really... Hillary winning California by 3 million votes does not mean she was supported by the country...
If the DEMs fail to take over the Congress it will be because their voters did not bother to show up. Any idea why Liberals have historically failed to show up for mid-term elections?
I'm more concerned with voter disenfranchisement, which is the Republican way.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone is removed from the voter rolls without their knowledge, they should pay no taxes. No taxation without representation!
Moose
"Again really... Hillary winning California by 3 million votes does not mean she was supported by the country..."
Well, she has a lot better claim at it than Trump does.
Idea: Let Hillary be the President of California, and get rid of the Governor. Probably an improvement all the way around.
Moose, do you favor leaving dead people on the voter rolls, even though there is no way to "notify" them? People who have moved out of state? Convicted felons? "Mickey Mouse"? People who do not exist at the address they registered? (there were 22,000 of them last year.) I think I prefer Republican "voter suppression" to DFL voter FRAUD.
'Moose, do you favor leaving dead people on the voter rolls, even though there is no way to "notify" them? People who have moved out of state?
Please address my comment, not some other issue that you'd prefer to talk about.
None of those people are going to turn up at the poll and find out they're no longer registered.
'I think I prefer Republican "voter suppression"...'
Of course you do. Lower turnout is better for the minority party.
Native Americans in North Dakota have been completely disenfranchised, but that's okay, right?
Moose
Technically Hillary does not have a better claim... That is why she is not in the White House... :-)
I thought I WAS addressing your issue. What your side calls "voter suppression" our side calls "voting integrity." Our DFL Secretary of State a few years ago had to be sued to force him to take dead people off the rolls, and even now bends the rules to allow felons and illegals to vote. Again, I prefer proper maintenance of the voting rolls to improper maintenance that leads to voter fraud.
"Technically Hillary does not have a better claim."
If the claim is "supported by the country", winning by 3 million votes is rather strong evidence.
If the claim is "winning the Electoral College", then no.
No, jerry. You were not addressing my issue at all.
You changed the subject in order to rationalize the voter suppression efforts that Republicans, and it's always Republicans, are engaged in.
North Dakota's voter ID law is simply the most recent, egregious example.
Moose
Sean,
I am not sure 3 million votes from specific districts is a very good measure of "Supported by the Country"...
I think that would be strong evidence of "Supported by Citizens who live in Cities"...
And since the majority of our country is not urban... It seems we need a President who can gather support from both the Cities and all that Fly Over space...
Moose,
Being a Voter ID fan, the ND laws make sense to me.
And if American Indians want the benefit of voting USA elections, then they should be on the USA system. Not just their Indian Nation systems.
After reading that in more detail I am always puzzled that people want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to stay off the government radar by not maintaining a legal photo ID.
and
They want to get the benefits of citizenship...
"I am not sure 3 million votes from specific districts is a very good measure of "Supported by the Country"... "
California is heck of a lot more diverse than the states that Trump won by larger % margins than Hillary won California by.
"And since the majority of our country is not urban."
The majority of the people (250 million, per the Census Bureau) live in urban areas. You're back to having land vote.
"They want to stay off the government radar by not maintaining a legal photo ID."
It certainly doesn't say that in your article (it in fact explains quite clearly why many don't have a physical address on their ID). Where are you getting that magnificent racist projection from?
Well, it's just another example of our government not living up to its treaties with the people from whom we stole this land.
Perhaps we can address this by giving the native populations of each state their own vote in the Senate or House. Surely we can accommodate 50 more congresspersons.
Moose
Apparently Hillary got most of her votes in those cities also. And diverse means a lot more than just skin color...
Not "Land Vote"... But "Region or State Vote"...
No racism required... I just believe that if you live in America and want the benefits of being a US citizen... The US Big Brother should know where you are hanging your hat...
They can do as they wish in "Their Nation", however I think they need to conform with US laws to participate in "Our Nation".
Granting Native Americans reservations was probably one of the silliest things our ancestors ever did... To the victor should go the spoils.
"And diverse means a lot more than just skin color..."
True. California has a diverse economy. It's by far our #1 agricultural state, it produces as much crude oil as Alaska, is in the top 5 mining states, is #3 in lumber, not to mention its prominence in technology, tourism, and media industries. It's the closest thing to a full cross-section of the U.S. economy that you can find in one state.
"Not "Land Vote"... But "Region or State Vote"..."
Practically, it's the same thing.
As Vox points out today, the situation is only going to get worse if the current trends continue. The country is becoming more urban, and more of the population is clustering.
"Since 2000, fully 40 percent of presidential elections have been won by the loser of the popular vote. Republicans control the US Senate despite winning fewer votes than Democrats, and it’s understood that House Democrats need to beat Republicans by as much as 7 or 8 points in the popular vote to hold a majority in the chamber. Next year, it’s possible that Republicans will control the presidency and both chambers of Congress despite having received fewer votes for the White House in 2016 and for the House and Senate in 2018.
Kavanaugh now serves on a Supreme Court where four of the nine justices were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote in his initial run for office, and where the 5-4 conservative majority owes its existence to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s extraordinary decision to deny Merrick Garland a hearing. This Court will rule on the constitutionality of gerrymandering, voter ID laws, union dues, campaign finance, Obamacare, and more; that is to say, they will rule on cases that will shape who holds, and who can effectively wield, political power in the future.
...
By 2040, 70 percent of Americans will live in the 15 largest states. That means 70 percent of America will be represented by only 30 senators, while the other 30 percent of America will be represented by 70 senators.
It is not difficult to imagine an America where Republicans consistently win the presidency despite rarely winning the popular vote, where they control both the House and the Senate despite rarely winning more votes than the Democrats, where their dominance of the Supreme Court is unquestioned, and where all this power is used to buttress a system of partisan gerrymandering and pro-corporate campaign finance laws and strict voter ID requirements and anti-union legislation that further weakens Democrats’ electoral performance.
If this seems outlandish, well, it simply describes the world we live in now, and assumes it continues forward. Look at North Carolina, where Republican legislators are trying to change the state Constitution to gain power over both elections and courts. Look at Wisconsin, where state Republicans gerrymandered the seats to make Democratic control a near impossibility. Look at Citizens United, which research finds gave Republicans a 5 percentage point boost in elections for state legislators. Look at Georgia, where the GOP candidate for governor currently serves as secretary of state and is executing a voter purge designed to help him win office."
Vox: The rigging of American politics
As I often say... How are the DEM's going to change to also meet the needs of the rural States and Regions?
"How are the DEM's going to change to also meet the needs of the rural States and Regions?"
Why don't Republicans have to change? Why do they, as a minority party, get to rule the roost?
When I read your response to Sean's detailed comment about our antidemocratic system of govt I had just one thought- what an ass. (sorry for my disrespectul / profane name calling, John, but that is what I thought.)
Elections are like popularity contests... The popular girl does not have to change to attract new suitors.
It is the slight homely girl that needs to adjust her appearance or approach to attract more people from different peer groups.
As long as the DEMs choose to:
- protect public employees from accountability
- protect illegal workers from deportation
- support no restriction abortions
- support no expectation welfare
- etc, etc, etc
They are not going to be elected Home Coming Queen.
Laurie,
That is okay, but I think that response was actually a quote from VOX.
And we just disagree what is a fair representative system... Thankfully mine is the law in our country.
"Elections are like popularity contests..."
And the Dems are more popular. I like your analogy. It means that it is the Republicans who need to change.
Moose
CNN The Forecast: Democrats have a problem with Latino voters
That is kind of interesting given all the border controversy... Or maybe it is mostly White Liberals who are upset by the idea of keeping illegal workers out?
Moose,
All popularity contests are dependent on the rules of that culture / system...
In our case you need to be popular in over half the country, not just with the cool kids clique.
However you are correct that I walked right into that one... :-)
Popularity is popularity. Both parties are popular, it's just that one is more popular than the other.
Moose
So says the runner up at homecoming... "We are all popular and pretty..." :-(
Just because the rules are one way today doesn't mean they have to stay that way. Just look at how the electoral college has changed over the years. And don't say it hasn't changed recently: Maine and Nebraska didn't always allocate electoral votes by congressional district. Both of those started in the last 50 years (Maine in 1972, Nebraska 1992).
Post a Comment