DeSantis pulls out of the race.

[mspart]

17 hours ago, flyingcement said:

Both of the two major parties are so incredibly pathetic.  Hopefully we don't see weak people who are bullied into the idea that votes only matter if for D or R.  This is a braindead idea, and if you encounter someone that thinks that, you can probably discount most other things they have to say.   

What chance does Kennedy Jr have?  How about Peter Sonski?  Cornell West?  Joe Manchin if he runs as an independent?

Ross Perot was a spoiler.   At the risk of being that person, who is a viable candidate that is not an R or D?  

It would be nice if an independent could grab enough attention to get elected.   But it doesn't happen.  This isn't Madam Secretary.

mspart

[flyingcement]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

What chance does Kennedy Jr have?  How about Peter Sonski?  Cornell West?  Joe Manchin if he runs as an independent?

Ross Perot was a spoiler.   At the risk of being that person, who is a viable candidate that is not an R or D?  

It would be nice if an independent could grab enough attention to get elected.   But it doesn't happen.  This isn't Madam Secretary.

mspart

Whether or not they have a chance of winning is entirely irrelevant.  A vote is just information sent from a person to the political world about they care about.  It's up to politicians to incorporate those views into their platform or not.  It saddens me how many people truly don't get it

[mspart]

Just now, flyingcement said:

Whether or not they have a chance of winning is entirely irrelevant.  A vote is just information sent from a person to the political world about they care about.  It's up to politicians to incorporate those views into their platform or not.  It saddens me how many people truly don't get it

It is relevant.   If we only get an independent running for Pres every 4 years, what is the draw?   A vote for them is not much of a statement.   If there was a viable 3rd party that was getting people in the Congress, that would be a better message to send.   Once every 4 years makes such a candidate irrelevant.

mspart

[flyingcement]

If anyone wonders why we will have two atrocious candidates again, you can blame anyone who ever voted for party over person.  These people are idiots

[flyingcement]

Just now, mspart said:

It is relevant.   If we only get an independent running for Pres every 4 years, what is the draw?   A vote for them is not much of a statement.   If there was a viable 3rd party that was getting people in the Congress, that would be a better message to send.   Once every 4 years makes such a candidate irrelevant.

mspart

It's not relevant for a single voter in the slightest. 

[jross]

'They' will not allow the Ron Pauls, Vivek Ramaswamys, and Andrew Yangs a fair opportunity in the primaries.  

[mspart]

1 hour ago, flyingcement said:

It's not relevant for a single voter in the slightest. 

So you want an irrelevant independent candidate in the Presidential race once every 4 years with no ground game to get him/her the support he/she needs to be successful.   I guess you are right.  Such a candidate is not relevant. 

mspart

[flyingcement]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

So you want an irrelevant independent candidate in the Presidential race once every 4 years with no ground game to get him/her the support he/she needs to be successful.   I guess you are right.  Such a candidate is not relevant. 

mspart

I think that the data is whats important.  Republicans and Democrats have formed their parties around a loose agenda of what they expect that voters care about.  One of the primary sources of voter intelligence for prospective politicians are the actual votes from last time around.  If you feel that the Republican and Democratic platforms are unsuitable to serve our country, it is your duty to vote for candidates which stand for the things that you believe are missing.  That's how democracy works if people do it correctly.  If someone votes for red or blue because they want to be aligned with a winner, they don't understand what they are doing.

[JimmyBT]

14 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I think that the data is whats important.  Republicans and Democrats have formed their parties around a loose agenda of what they expect that voters care about.  One of the primary sources of voter intelligence for prospective politicians are the actual votes from last time around.  If you feel that the Republican and Democratic platforms are unsuitable to serve our country, it is your duty to vote for candidates which stand for the things that you believe are missing.  That's how democracy works if people do it correctly.  If someone votes for red or blue because they want to be aligned with a winner, they don't understand what they are doing.

You don’t think that’s exactly what’s happening?   Removing Democrat or Republican from the ballot would confuse the Fu&k out of this country.  

[flyingcement]

1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

You don’t think that’s exactly what’s happening?   Removing Democrat or Republican from the ballot would confuse the Fu&k out of this country.  

I don't think we should remove the party names from the ballot.  What I think is happening is that both sides have been convinced that the other side is the worst possible thing that can happen to the country.  And in doing that, we have people who believe they need to vote red or blue to protect us from the opposite.  When people feel an existential crisis is at hand, they are more comfortable voting for a candidate with about 50% overlap in beliefs to help avoid that other person.  And since we have been increasingly polarized ever since the 90s, I would say that we face a problem where the major parties don't even have the right information for how they should evolve, because their voters are too scared of telling them.

 

[JimmyBT]

3 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I don't think we should remove the party names from the ballot.  What I think is happening is that both sides have been convinced that the other side is the worst possible thing that can happen to the country.  And in doing that, we have people who believe they need to vote red or blue to protect us from the opposite.  When people feel an existential crisis is at hand, they are more comfortable voting for a candidate with about 50% overlap in beliefs to help avoid that other person.  And since we have been increasingly polarized ever since the 90s, I would say that we face a problem where the major parties don't even have the right information for how they should evolve, because their voters are too scared of telling them.

 

Scared to tell them?  Please elaborate. 

[flyingcement]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

Scared to tell them?  Please elaborate. 

Scared to tell them as in - they will not vote for a third party candidate as a way of moving the party forward.  The democrats are so scared of the republican alternative, and republicans scared of the democrat alternative - that instead of voting another similar but more accurate candidate which is not the primary D or R - they will just "hold their nose" and vote for the party.  In doing that, they hide the information about what issues they think the party needs to take into consideration.  

[JimmyBT]

1 minute ago, flyingcement said:

Scared to tell them as in - they will not vote for a third party candidate as a way of moving the party forward.  The democrats are so scared of the republican alternative, and republicans scared of the democrat alternative - that instead of voting another similar but more accurate candidate which is not the primary D or R - they will just "hold their nose" and vote for the party.  In doing that, they hide the information about what issues they think the party needs to take into consideration.  

A perfect reason to remove the R and D.  

[flyingcement]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

A perfect reason to remove the R and D.  

I won't disagree - it may be a logical step to do that.  I would say that I think most people know at the presidential level which candidate is in which party - but once it gets to the local level, many don't take the time to do the research, and vote on party.  I've made a point of trying to research as much as I realistically can and I won't vote on any office if I don't have an informed opinion to provide

[JimmyBT]

10 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I won't disagree - it may be a logical step to do that.  I would say that I think most people know at the presidential level which candidate is in which party - but once it gets to the local level, many don't take the time to do the research, and vote on party.  I've made a point of trying to research as much as I realistically can and I won't vote on any office if I don't have an informed opinion to provide

That’s the point. Force them to do the research like SOME of us do.  And I think you give american voters too much credit. There’s a reason why politicians don’t want the R and D removed.  

Edited January 25 by JimmyBT

[flyingcement]

3 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

That’s the point. Force them to do the research like SOME of us do.  And I think you give americas voters too much credit. There’s a reason why positions don’t want the R and D removed.  

I didn't even realize there was an active resistance (or promotion) of removing the party names.  I am at the point now where I feel like voting should be a federal holiday - and that there should be a basic test done by a computer - to verify that the person has at least done a little bit of research.  if you don't know what you're voting for, then what result should we expect?  On the other hand I could see many people criticizing my idea as being biased and anti-democratic, but I don't really care.

[JimmyBT]

1 minute ago, flyingcement said:

I didn't even realize there was an active resistance (or promotion) of removing the party names.  I am at the point now where I feel like voting should be a federal holiday - and that there should be a basic test done by a computer - to verify that the person has at least done a little bit of research.  if you don't know what you're voting for, then what result should we expect?  On the other hand I could see many people criticizing my idea as being biased and anti-democratic, but I don't really care.

I’d support it being a federal holiday but it’s not something I think should be at the top of the list.  I think the number of states is 43 that offer early voting, some that offer as much as 15 days. Plus many companies will allow you to leave work to vote. To me if you can’t figure out how to vote in 5-15 days you don’t deserve to vote.  We have a citizenship test why not a voters test?  

[JimmyBT]

10 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I didn't even realize there was an active resistance (or promotion) of removing the party names.  I am at the point now where I feel like voting should be a federal holiday - and that there should be a basic test done by a computer - to verify that the person has at least done a little bit of research.  if you don't know what you're voting for, then what result should we expect?  On the other hand I could see many people criticizing my idea as being biased and anti-democratic, but I don't really care.

I’ve seen it here and there but I do think it’s something that will continue to have legs in the future. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/nyregion/keeping-parties-off-ballots-is-now-something-to-argue.html

 

[flyingcement]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

I’d support it being a federal holiday but it’s not something I think should be at the top of the list.  I think the number of states is 43 that offer early voting, some that offer as much as 15 days. Plus many companies will allow you to leave work to vote. To me if you can’t figure out how to vote in 5-15 days you don’t deserve to vote.  We have a citizenship test why not a voters test?  

Presidents day is a bit useless to me - I'd be willing to sacrifice it for the sake of a federal voting holiday, but I get your point.  Unfortunately there are games played between both parties with gerrymandering as well as voter suppression which do make me empathize with those that want an easier path to vote.  I say sure - if you can verify your identify, and that you have conducted a basic level of research, that the path should be smooth and seamless for those folks.  

[JimmyBT]

2 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Presidents day is a bit useless to me - I'd be willing to sacrifice it for the sake of a federal voting holiday, but I get your point.  Unfortunately there are games played between both parties with gerrymandering as well as voter suppression which do make me empathize with those that want an easier path to vote.  I say sure - if you can verify your identify, and that you have conducted a basic level of research, that the path should be smooth and seamless for those folks.  

I completed my 2020 US census survey on my phone.  The census is what we use to decide how many representatives for congress each state gets and how much federal funding each state gets.  It seems to me that if it works for something as important as the census it should be safe and functional enough to use for elections.  Simple verification, simple survey voting questions and then completing the vote.  Also, IMO it would be easier to track any fraud if it exists than mail in ballots and machines.  

[flyingcement]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

I completed my 2020 US census survey on my phone.  The census is what we use to decide how many representatives for congress each state gets and how much federal funding each state gets.  It seems to me that if it works for something as important as the census it should be safe and functional enough to use for elections.  Simple verification, simple survey voting questions and then completing the vote.  Also, IMO it would be easier to track any fraud if it exists than mail in ballots and machines.  

Yeah I mean our family had a computer in the house since around 1992.  It's actually astonishing how archaic the voting system is in spite of all of the innovations of the last several decades.

[JimmyBT]

13 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Yeah I mean our family had a computer in the house since around 1992.  It's actually astonishing how archaic the voting system is in spite of all of the innovations of the last several decades.

And there’s still ways to get to the shut ins that may not have access to the internet or transportation.  Many fly over states that can’t find doctors or can’t afford hospitals are moving to mobile care (traveling dr/hospital.  We have mobile libraries and bloodmobiles.  Seems to me that a voting mobiles could go to the elder care establishments etc 

Edited January 25 by JimmyBT

[flyingcement]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:15 PM, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Exactly what I'm planning to do.

Bernie Pragle used to say that we all probably agree on much more than we disagree on. I suspect he was right.

It's just that the parts we don't agree on get most of the focus (I'll call it the squeaky-wheel effect - why pay attention to the wheels that work fine?)

Where has Bernie been?  His presence has been missed

[GreatWhiteNorth]

20 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Where has Bernie been?  His presence has been missed

That is a really good question. His steady perspective and insightful wit aren't something we often see around here.

[JimmyBT]

He got sick of being wrong