United States Politics Thread 46

[sangi39]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Would a "no recall" result under this sort of system trigger, for example, a second round of votes within the constituency, or do you think it would depend on how the vote took place, e.g. whether the ballot was an open list, a closed list, or something else?

[Travis B.]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Would a "no recall" result under this sort of system trigger, for example, a second round of votes within the constituency, or do you think it would depend on how the vote took place, e.g. whether the ballot was an open list, a closed list, or something else?

A "no recall" result I would presume would result in staying with the status quo. About lists, note that in parliamentary governments recalls in their conventional sense do not really make sense in closed party-list systems, I should note; rather, one would have to recall entire parties, which is not something that is typically seen.

[sangi39]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Would a "no recall" result under this sort of system trigger, for example, a second round of votes within the constituency, or do you think it would depend on how the vote took place, e.g. whether the ballot was an open list, a closed list, or something else?

A "no recall" result I would presume would result in staying with the status quo. About lists, note that in parliamentary governments recalls in their conventional sense do not really make sense in closed party-list systems, I should note; rather, one would have to recall entire parties, which is not something that is typically seen.

Ahhhh, nuts, sorry, that was my mistake, I meant a "no renewal" vote, where the encumbant fails to gain a majority of votes, where non-votes are "no" votes

[Travis B.]

Would a "no recall" result under this sort of system trigger, for example, a second round of votes within the constituency, or do you think it would depend on how the vote took place, e.g. whether the ballot was an open list, a closed list, or something else?

A "no recall" result I would presume would result in staying with the status quo. About lists, note that in parliamentary governments recalls in their conventional sense do not really make sense in closed party-list systems, I should note; rather, one would have to recall entire parties, which is not something that is typically seen.

Ahhhh, nuts, sorry, that was my mistake, I meant a "no renewal" vote, where the encumbant fails to gain a majority of votes, where non-votes are "no" votes

What I had originally meant is that if there is not a 50+% vote of all registered voters in a recall, it would automatically default to the status quo, not he opposite.

[sangi39]

A "no recall" result I would presume would result in staying with the status quo. About lists, note that in parliamentary governments recalls in their conventional sense do not really make sense in closed party-list systems, I should note; rather, one would have to recall entire parties, which is not something that is typically seen.

Ahhhh, nuts, sorry, that was my mistake, I meant a "no renewal" vote, where the encumbant fails to gain a majority of votes, where non-votes are "no" votes

What I had originally meant is that if there is not a 50+% vote of all registered voters in a recall, it would automatically default to the status quo, not he opposite.

Ohhhhhh, okay, yep, got it. Thanks, I think I wasn't following you properly, and that's on me

[bradrn]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Compulsory voting largely avoids this problem, in my experience.

[Travis B.]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Compulsory voting largely avoids this problem, in my experience.

Of course, there can also be problems with compulsory voting, e.g. when combined with ranked choices and non-random ordering thereof, as in the case of the infamous Australian "donkey vote", where people who do not want to vote will number choices as 1, 2, 3... going down the ballot. Apparently this has enough influence that parties will specifically field candidates whose names are early in the alphabet to take advantage of it.

[bradrn]

Fundamentally the problem with recalls in representative systems is that they are typically not representative of the whole body of people who voted the representatives in, but rather of just the extreme portions thereof, actually making them undemocratic. Of course, this can be solved by counting every registered voter as having voted, whether they actually vote or not, on recalls, and only going through with the recall if at least a majority of all registered voters vote for it, not just of those who actually voted (i.e. a non-vote is a no-vote).

Compulsory voting largely avoids this problem, in my experience.

Of course, there can also be problems with compulsory voting, e.g. when combined with ranked choices and non-random ordering thereof, as in the case of the infamous Australian "donkey vote", where people who do not want to vote will number choices as 1, 2, 3... going down the ballot. Apparently this has enough influence that parties will specifically field candidates whose names are early in the alphabet to take advantage of it.

We do have random ordering, though: https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/ballot-draw.htm. In practice, the donkey vote doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.

[Travis B.]

Compulsory voting largely avoids this problem, in my experience.

Of course, there can also be problems with compulsory voting, e.g. when combined with ranked choices and non-random ordering thereof, as in the case of the infamous Australian "donkey vote", where people who do not want to vote will number choices as 1, 2, 3... going down the ballot. Apparently this has enough influence that parties will specifically field candidates whose names are early in the alphabet to take advantage of it.

We do have random ordering, though: https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/ballot-draw.htm. In practice, the donkey vote doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.

They must have changed things, as I had specifically heard that candidates on Australian ballots were in alphabetical order...

[bradrn]

Of course, there can also be problems with compulsory voting, e.g. when combined with ranked choices and non-random ordering thereof, as in the case of the infamous Australian "donkey vote", where people who do not want to vote will number choices as 1, 2, 3... going down the ballot. Apparently this has enough influence that parties will specifically field candidates whose names are early in the alphabet to take advantage of it.

We do have random ordering, though: https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/ballot-draw.htm. In practice, the donkey vote doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.

They must have changed things, as I had specifically heard that candidates on Australian ballots were in alphabetical order...

All I can say is that I’ve never heard anything like that.

[Raphael]

They must have changed things, as I had specifically heard that candidates on Australian ballots were in alphabetical order...

All I can say is that I’ve never heard anything like that.

From what I've heard, Australian ballots used to list candidates' names alphabetically, a long time ago, but that was changed when some parties started to run a lot of candidates whose surnames started with the letter "A".

[Moose-tache]

[Raphael]

So, looks like it's actually happening. Hm.

[Moose-tache]

Even if he is convicted, I feel like this is another attempt by the Dems to aim the gun directly at their own feet. IIUC, the actual crime is falsifying documents to hide a $130,000 bribe to a hooker that he already admitted to making seven years ago. So it's entirely an accounting irregularity, adding up to less than a quarter million dollars. Does anybody else see how this could backfire? I just wish the center left would stop homunculizing all the problems onto Trump. He was never the disease, he was always a symptom. The disease is us. There will always be another Trump; there are already new Trumps in government now.

[Torco]

I hear there are even scaries <read: more overtly fascist> republicans these days.

[Raphael]

Sorry for writing something pretty much unrelated to current events, but there's one question about political debate in the USA that I keep asking myself:

The question is: who, exactly, is the audience for Tom Friedman these days? My impression from watching what's happening in the US-centered parts of the internet is that conservatives hate him because he's occasionally said somewhat unfriendly things about Israel, Leftists hate him as a cheerleader for globalisation and neoliberalism, and somewhat-left-leaning middle-of-the-road types see him simply as a ridiculous clown who keeps flying around the world and writing reports about what's supposedly happening everywhere based on what his taxi- and Uber drivers told him.

Yet somehow, he keeps getting paid big bucks and being treated as a Really Big Deal. So, who reads him? Especially if you don't count people who hate-read him?

[Raphael]

I just read the following paragraph from a report on the latest developments in the Trump case:

New York City attorney Todd Blanche joined Trump’s legal team on Monday, leaving his longtime firm Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft to do so.

Today I learned that there's an actual law firm called "Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft". Can't make that stuff up.

[zompist]

The question is: who, exactly, is the audience for Tom Friedman these days? My impression from watching what's happening in the US-centered parts of the internet is that conservatives hate him because he's occasionally said somewhat unfriendly things about Israel, Leftists hate him as a cheerleader for globalisation and neoliberalism, and somewhat-left-leaning middle-of-the-road types see him simply as a ridiculous clown who keeps flying around the world and writing reports about what's supposedly happening everywhere based on what his taxi- and Uber drivers told him.

Reading through his Wikipedia article is kind of depressing: he's managed to be dead wrong on so many issues. He really really loves people who have power.

But to answer your question, my guess is, centrists, especially people who miss the 90s and thought that both Bush and Clinton were all right but could be even more so if they'd only take his advice. I expect that group overlaps quite a bit with people who actually subscribe to the NYT.

[hwhatting]

But to answer your question, my guess is, centrists, especially people who miss the 90s

Yes, that's when he had his heyday; as I remember it, he had become a standing joke already by the mid-naughties. I was surprised to learn from Raphael's post that anyone is still paying for him to speak and write, but I guess if aging rock stars can continue to make money from playing familiar tunes to their aging audiences, so can pundits...

[masako]

I expect that group overlaps quite a bit with people who actually subscribe to the NYT.

They're gonna need a tourniquet for that deep cut.