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.)
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.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:
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
I hope the Republicans will skip shutting down the government this year. I was out of work for eights months after they shut down the government last year for nothing. I'm still trying to recover from the Great Recession after being out of work three of the last six years and filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. These hissy-fits in Washington don't help anyone.
Freedom of the press has taken a huge hit under the Obama admin.
Although one could argue that the wheels were set in motion during Bush's watch, it was under Obama's Napolitano that we lost the freedom to not be groped or oggled at the airport.
sig: sauer
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.
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
suffering from pronoia
Because we are about to regain some freedom by telling the Democrat party to STFU and sit down?!
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
Be seeing you...
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
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!”
How again is this News For Nerds?
Because Obama is thinking about granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US. So if legal H1-Bs overstay their visas, and become illegal immigrants . . . poof . . . they will become legal residents. For H1-B employers, mission accomplished. More people willing to work for less. And the employers will not need to go through the paperwork hassle for getting H1-Bs.
That's why.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
US military R&D spending has brought you the technology that is the Internet. It has also introduced the world to numerous capabilities that companies have productized into things you use every day. The smartphone persists as a perfect example: DRAM, touch screens, GPS, microprocessors, and liquid crystal displays name only several of many. Beyond R&D, some really sick and twisted evil exists in the world, and I sleep better at night knowing a kickass US military can confront it. Those things may not mean anything to you, but they mean a lot to many of us. This election will not decide who serves as president, so the Electoral College versus popular vote issue does not surface here. Each district and roughly 2/3 of the states will each send a representative to Congress.
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.
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Actually the Patriot Act was extended by Obama in 2011, extended just long enough to cover his 2nd term. Obama owns the Patriot Act. More importantly, Obama **uses** the Patriot Act. He could have ordered the Justice Department, the FBI and all the other agencies under executive branch control to stop using it, but he **chose not too**.
How in the world can you say that??? Together they get over 98% of the vote. Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
Maybe YOU can explain to us all what connection you imagine there is between getting votes and competence.
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
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"
States ditch electronic voting machines yay!
Because Nerds need funding to do the thing that they do. Funding depends on the economy providing dollars for corporations to spend. It also depends on the Government either directly providing dollars for science and R&D or indirectly creating policy that helps the economy generate dollars. If your a nerd, you should be concerned about what the Government is doing -- it has a direct impact on your ability to do nerdy things.
The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.
That is actually just trivia since neither side is trying to achieve the popular vote. Both sides are allocating their time, money, personnel and other resources to achieve the electoral/districts(*) vote. For the popular vote to be a meaningful statistics it would need to be what one side was actually going for. As it is the popular vote is merely highly correlated with the electoral/districts vote so it occasionally goes the other way, just trivia when it happens.
Losing sides like to bring up irrelevant statistics to console the fans. In politics its sometimes the popular vote. In football it may be how many yards did the team move the ball while they had possession. That's interesting and all, but yardage was not what the team trying for. Just like the popular vote was not what the political party was trying for.
(*) Note that we are talking about the nationwide results, the results in all districts, not the results in one particular district. Gerrymandering is a problem, it is a local phenomena, and both parties actively engage in it. Gerrymandering is done at the state level, so whatever party controls the state legislature gets to gerrymander to give their party an advantage in federal elections. Thus there is a certain amount of canceling out in the US congress. In no way should this be interpreted to say gerrymandering is not a problem, it is
The first past the post voting system used in the United States practically guarantees that over time the political choices will devolve into two different groups. In the event that one eventually dies or becomes too unpopular, the new group will splinter and replace the old one. Under other systems, it's quite likely that either party could be relegated to being much more niche in only a matter of decades.
I'll note that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need the 60 votes to override for TWO things: A) Judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level and B) Executive nominations below the cabinet level and in no other situations.
There were no changes to the filibuster for legislation (though personally I'd have loved to see it change from 60 votes to stop debate over to 40 votes to continue debate), and Mitch McConnell has indicated in the past that he doesn't see changing that should he become Majority Leader this fall.
As for the filibuster, I'd love to see it change just on the basis of "If you say you want to continue debate, don't say that then leave town." I'm fine with continuing "debate" (not that they ever actually debate the items they're delaying/killing), but by god if you're going to do it you'd better care enough to actually stick around.
fencepost
just a little off
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!”
my #1 question would be "Which candidate is going to do what is necessary to fix the economy and create jobs".
And what exactly would that be? I don't think most people understand macroeconomics well enough to know "what is necessary" -- so even if a politician did know what to do and planned to do it, he probably would not want to alienate 50+% of his potential voters by explaining to the public "what is necessary".
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
They forgot to tell Chicago that you could not win an election by fraud. I know heritage.org is right-leaning, but the article is thorough and heavily footnoted documenting one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
I think more stringent budgeting rules are far more critical than term limits. If you limit the power to spend limitless amounts of pork money, you're taking away a lot of their power, period. Less need for the term limits then. Congress has demonstrated time and time and time again that it doesn't have the political will to reign in the budget.
Of course, I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell over either of these things happening.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
In Australia, voting is compulsory, so turnout is in excess of 80%.
There is no requirement for IDs when voting, just making sure your name is crossed off the list in the seat you're registered for. This obviously means that you can, illegally, vote twice at two different locations, but the system will pick it up (when they scan the registers)
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the election officer can request some form of ID if they suspect foul play.
Anyway, it is possible to cheat, but the percentage of rejected votes is so small that there is no reason to change the system and increase the costs associated with it.
I guess, because the voting is compulsory hence a large turnout minimises the effects compared to a voluntary voting system where the turnout is low and the percentages become significant.
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The fallacy of money controlling politicians, the true secondary status of money in politics, is evidenced by the two most power lobbies in the US. The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power. Basically voters are currently creating a power vacuum by abdicating their power of control. It is truly as simple as this: a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er. Money can not control things unless the 99% allows it too. True reform will only come when voters exercise their power, especially so in a punitive manners.
Note that party loyalty is part of the problem with respect to money in politics. It takes away the punitive power of voters when an incumbent goes against the interests of the people in service to monied interests.
I'm having second thoughts about Romney.
He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
Then again given that most of the jobs he's done have taken the form of eliminating the jobs of others, it's not a great accomplishment.
Don't have a citation, but I have prior art.
obama closed Gitmo on January 22, 2009 by executive order directing it be done within 1 year.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/...
I can see obama doing the same for immigrants. He knows he can't do anything but sign a useless piece of paper that the media will triumphantly laud him and the democrats for, and then be curiously silent on how it had absolutely no effect at all.
It keeps the uniformed voting for the democrats, and it feeds the infotainment that's making Limbaugh Millions of dollars.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Probably the simplest solution to the whole "fix the economy and create jobs" thing is the one least likely to be tried: Stop monkeying with the system!
Instead, let's just leave the laws, rules and regulations currently in place alone long enough for things to settle down. Say, 20 years.
Then, if we don't like the result, let's change a few things, and wait another 20 years. Repeat as needed.
Alas, Governments, national and otherwise, don't like to do nothing for decades, and the dear people have come to expect that Government exists to fix problems now, Now, NOW!
Still, a constantly changing regulatory/tax environment is never going to be a good way to convince businesses to do anything they don't absolutely have to to get along....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So the Republican majority in the House was able to 'force' the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Democratic President (both of which, in your world opposed extending and/or expanding the Patriot Act) to extend AND expand the Patriot Act... Interesting.
I wonder why the House Republicans haven't used that same Jedi mind control to ram through any of the other 370 bills passed by the House and then left to languish in Harry Reid's desk drawer...
Ken
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Only for lower court (not Supreme Court) judicial nominees. And only because the amount of vacancies got to be alarming. The 2/3 majority to pass anything rule that we've all come to love over the past 10 years of Republican minority in the Senate is still in place, so never fear.