Slashdot Mirror

I've never understood why anyone but card-carrying, dues paying, party members would have a say in who a party nominates to run in an election. Is there anywhere other than the US where the general public gets a say in who the party nominates? Do the Libertarians, Communists, Greens, or other "3rd party" groups do things differently?

One thing that ranked voting does well in my opinion is to change the mindset of voters to one of "picking people you agree with" rather than "avoiding people you dislike". There is much less of an incentive to do the meta-analysis of "which candidates have a reasonable chance of wining, and how should I vote in light of that analysis?". Eventually, it seems like successful candidates would be incentivized to develop wide-spread appeal and that voters would feel more engaged and represented. Getting to express your opinion when voting rather than holding one's nose to pick the "lesser of two evils", even when the final result is that "one of the two evils" ends up being elected, in my mind, would be a good thing. I think the political climate of the US would be very different if the 2016 election had been voted on using ranked ballots even if the outcome was the same - it would be much easier to feel that "the will of the people" had been invoked if people had been able to express their actual desires rather than the "this is who I will vote for given how I expect other people to vote" decisions everybody needed to do.

Anyhow, hopefully the Maine election will give some positive US experiences in "different" voting methods that will inform future changes. Since we seem almost incapable of learning from other countries' experiences, learning from inside the US might be our only hope.

https://bangordailynews.com/20...

In the long run, you can....though that hasn't happened since the Civil War.

No, you can't change anything by voting third party, by your own admission.

Look at what Maine did. In the span of just a couple of years they started the process of breaking the two party hegemony with ranked-choice voting. That's a little quicker than the 150+ year example you cited as an example of how voting 3rd party in first past the post elections can work.

I don't see how that's a preferable option, unless you're a die-hard republican or democrat interested in self-preservation.

Breaking down a big party isn't the only path to change. Even if it were, everyone who rejects the big parties by voting for a small party is contributing to the process, even if the final breakdown doesn't come for another 150 years.

Ranked choice voting lets people vote for a small party but also list the lesser of the two evil big parties as their second choice. That eliminates the argument that voting for a small party is "wasting your vote", an argument I don't buy but some people do. It appears that in Maine, one of the big parties is trying very hard to repeal ranked choice voting, which must mean they are concerned that it will mean less power for them.

In the long run, you can....though that hasn't happened since the Civil War.

No, you can't change anything by voting third party, by your own admission.

Look at what Maine did. In the span of just a couple of years they started the process of breaking the two party hegemony with ranked-choice voting. That's a little quicker than the 150+ year example you cited as an example of how voting 3rd party in first past the post elections can work.

I don't see how that's a preferable option, unless you're a die-hard republican or democrat interested in self-preservation.

Absolutely correct.

The GP has tried to work around the problem rather than finding a solution for it. The solution is preferential or ranked voting.

As an example of how this works, see what Maine just did for their primaries. And that's what will happen there in November too.

Yes, it's more complicated, but it's far less complicated than the "solution" that the GP describes. Imagine that happening twice in a row!

Snopes is wrong. Trading EBT cards for drugs is a consistent problem.

The locomotives of Lake Chamberlain Logging and Paper Company, Maine have absolutely no security and they are sitting there in the jungle clearing for any one to come in ride away (after raising steam and laying the railroad)

Same company - I think we may have now both learned a little something new.

http://archive.bangordailynews...

I like learning new things and I'd thought it was organics that they'd used and not spinning. I didn't read the article completely except to scan for the name for I am a lazy git. So I'll just operate under the assumption that you're correct. Although when it was on NPR I seem to recall they'd mentioned it was organics and based on the packaging and air but I could be mistaken. I didn't live in Maine but I'd already bought some of the property that I now own - I'd expected to retire here but I'd expected it to take longer. Then I got involved in some sales talks and, well, the rest is history.

By the time the company approached the credit union (a few years later) I was retired and on the board at the credit union. They were hoping to last long enough to be acquired, as I recall. (I'm pretty sure that this isn't something I can't disclose. I kind of hope not.) We declined given that they'd been peddling their wares for a while and there didn't seem to be much of an uptake and my opinion was that it was borderline retarded as anyone who wanted could just rip the DVDs to disk before they stopped functioning - they could even make multiple attempts as long as they did so reasonably quickly.

Anyhow, it's neat to think about the ideas that didn't really catch on. From a quick look, the article might be interesting...

Screw it... I'm going back to read it. I wasn't doing anything better.

Heh! I'm *never* right! I am, for once! Usually, it is my memory that is faulty.

Unopened Flexplay disks stay good in the package for about a year. But once the package seal is broken, a chemical reaction with oxygen begins, giving the owner two days to play the movie as many times as desired.

Now, I don't remember the NPR bit very well but I think they'd mentioned something about corn or a corn derivative? The article doesn't say and I'm not going to bother looking into it further. I'd absolutely not trust my memory where this is concerned. Hell, I was willing to defer to your recollection - it wouldn't surprise me if they'd had more than one incarnation though and that the method you mentioned had also been tried.

On the Internet, always use protection.

The last item on that list could probably be updated with this.

You'd be surprised. Remember Cheney was still in the White House when he came out in favor of gay marriage.

I don't think Obama broke any records last year, but he still had an awful lot of money from small individual donations.

Small individual donations are actually the way all the biggest-money pols make their targets. Personal donations max out at $2,600, and both corporations and PACs are limited to $5,000. SuperPACs can spend unlimited amounts, but they are banned from actually talking to a campaign about strategy, and tend to be run by political novices; so dollar-for-dollar they have so far been extremely ineffective. The way to rake in the donations is be an extre partisan jackass. There are a lot of people out there who just want to stick it to the liberals/conservatives, and will donate $50 to the last person they saw on MSNBC/Fox comparing Boehnor/Obama to Hitler.

Technically this story precedes the SuperPAC era, but it should show you the problems with depending on a SuperPAC to bail out a campaign. Prior to one of Bush's tax cut votes Maine's Olympia Snowe was on-the-fence. So the Club for Growth ran a http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2003/04/24/snowe-ad-puzzles-viewers-experts-tax-cut-advocates-attack-moderates/>snarky ad comparing her opposition to France's cowardice in opposing the Iraq War. Problem is Maine's 23% ethnic French. It's also in independent New England, so demanding fealty to the White house isn;t exactly great political tactics.

Which means that no Democratic congress will ever again pass a law, unless they have a supermajority.

Are you really saying that no laws have been passed in the last two years? What about the repeal of don't ask don't tell?

Your problem is, you don't understand political strategy. A congressperson can only afford to oppose a bill if it doesn't have much popular support in his home district. Thus, a good president will build political support for his program before sending it to congress. Bush understood this, and as an unfortunate result got us into a war in Iraq. Clinton understood this. Obama doesn't seem to understand this, which gives the Republicans a clear opening to oppose him. This is mainly a sign of Obama incompetence.

Just about the only thing he's done *anything* on was gay rights, and that boiled down to "repealing DADT"

From what I hear, he was pushed into that by a Republican. Kind of sad, really.

> a libertarian system would have a much cleaner environment because anyone could sue for damages.

How'd this be handled?
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/24/environment/report-suggests-songbirds-bats-at-risk-of-mercury-poisoning/?ref=latest

Java has forced objectification whilst at the same time lacking proper introversion. Since we most people here prefer lisping, especially the Pailinites that's just not acceptable.