Slashdot Mirror


US Midterm Elections Discussion

November 4th will be election day in the U.S. Though the presidential race is still forming, this midterm election has lots of close races that may give a hint about the likely outcome in 2016. Many pundits and pollsters see a strong chance that Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in Tuesday's election. Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election: candidates, political advertising, voting technology, and the wisdom of voter ID laws. If you are voting, this chart of poll closing times might be useful. (And, as with the similar post from 10 years ago today, you can take a look at the current poll to see what the Zeitgeist looks like for Slashdot readers, and mentally fill in the past tense, if you're one of the many early voters; not much room in the poll question field.)

13 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Flamefest by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election:...

    Yeah...you mean a giant flame fest.

    Sometimes I think the Slashdot editors treat Slashdot like a Fire Ant hill...poke it and watch them all scurry around furiously. I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Re:News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You mean freedom to have your taxes distributed to the military? And by taxes I mean the money the non-rich folks are extorted, because the rich have all the tax-loopholes to their advantage.

    Either R or D, you Americans are screwed. If only you moved your fat-asses and demanded to have your votes directly counted, instead of this scam that district voting is...

  3. Six Years Ago by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.

    How quickly things changed. A Republican elected to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts? Unthinkable! Pelosi being voted out of the Speaker's job two years later. Republicans gaining enough seats in state legislatures that the Democrats complained about them redrawing congressional districts (*cough* pot meet kettle *cough*). And it looks like the front runner for the Democrats' Presidential candidate in 2012 will be 70 year old Hillary Clinton.

    1. Re:Six Years Ago by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.

      There is no nationwide "popular vote" for House seats. The election is district by district for House seats. Excess Democratic votes in a district in Los Angeles don't matter for an election in Dallas, Texas. The people that keep claiming that are either confused or engaging in dishonest rhetoric.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Six Years Ago by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Of course there is no nationwide popular vote. But fact is more Americans voted for Democrats and they don't have the majority in the House. In a well designed system the House should match the vote. It does not.

      The Republican rep who got 50% + 1 in a low turn out safe red district primary does not care about any Republican running for statewide office or the national offices. His/her biggest concern is the next primary fight, coming in two years. They alienate every voting bloc in the larger nation to get through the next primary.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Six Years Ago by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But fact is more Americans voted for Democrats and they don't have the majority in the House. In a well designed system the House should match the vote. It does not.

      The House matches the relevant vote perfectly - ever district that had a Republican win is represented by a Republican. When a Democrat wins the district is represented by a Democrat. That is the only metric that matters under the Constitution. Or do you plan to start instituting government controls on where people can live based on their party affiliation?

      I don't know why you keep focusing on that irrelevant idea.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. Re:News For Nerds? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats! Because everybody knows, if you don't vote for one or the other, the cops will come and shoot your dog. Do you want that blood on your hands?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Re:The more things changes... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Those hissy-fitters get paid big money to do exactly that. The kabuki has a purpose. Maybe if you were more involved with Wall Street gambling circuit, you too, would benefit from that purpose. I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire. But with a 95% reelection rate, don't expect any improvement any time soon. Republicans and democrats work as a tag team to take your money.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Re:Republican gain a majority? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are some important things they'll be able to get done. The changes in the rules of the Senate that the Democrats under Harry Reid put in place will see to that. But now the shoe will be on the other foot.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  7. Re:Republican gain a majority? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm waiting for the Republicans to scream bloody murder when they can't get anything done in the Senate because they don't have 60 votes to override a Democratic filibuster or 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

    As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.

    Or did you really think that the Republicans were going to reinstate a rule that would handicap them?

    And if the Democrats decide to reinstate the filibuster before they lose control, well, they've still established that it's pretty much okay to change the rules whenever it's convenient. So the Republicans will remove it if needed (I said when the Dems decided to ditch the filibuster that it would come back to haunt them next time they were the Senate minority - most /.'ers at the time insisted that the Reps would never have a Senate majority again)

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  8. Re:News For Nerds? by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because getting votes is all they are required to do. After that they just sign the papers their "donors" put in front of them until the next cycle. If they comply, they will get funding for reelection, put on big committees, free hookers and coke (don't think I'm kidding on that), if not, it's back to managing *Al's Tires and Wheel Alignment*. No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch

    I really wonder how anybody can believe there is any honesty and what remotely could be called "honor" and respect in this business. These people couldn't be more overt. City sewers are cleaner than this. And here we are about to reelect over 90% of them back in. Maybe zombies are real.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Party loyalty makes you irrelevant ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party.

    And that is the only way in which real reform will occur. Voting for the more competent regardless of party, voting punitively against the misbehaving or those that act against the public good regardless of party.

    Loyally voting for your party makes a person irrelevant. Their party can ignore them because they have their vote, the other party can ignore them because they cannot attain their vote.

    Belonging to a party is fine, just don't let them think they get your vote automatically. If they put up a weak candidate, if the incumbent has a history of misbehaving or acting against the public interest then sorry, maybe next time.

    Politics is darwinian. Votes are the true currency of politics. If votes are spent wisely, and punitively, politicians will adapt accordingly. This is how real reform can be achieved.

  10. Re: News For Nerds? by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.