Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 463: ACAB/DC

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

Compulsory voting has a big individual rights leap it has to take, so it's in a totally different class of policy.

This is mitigated by giving an on ballot option to not-vote on everything.

Edit: also we don't seem to have any problem with the many individual rights violations that occur when people are denied their right to vote

For the record, I brought up abolishing the EC and implementing RCV up in the context of the "how do we break the two party stranglehold on America?"

Since I don't feel like writing like my 29th essay on the subject, I put those two as the tl;dr version - but I guess I have to explain a bit more because despite feeling I was pretty clear about that in the post it's being treated like I just threw it out there out of nowhere as something to do or do instead of compulsory voting, etc.

The reason we have a two party system and any serious third-party bid is doomed before it even begins is because of the FPTP voting and the Electoral College. I was saying that if you want to break that paradigm you need to do those two things first to even open up the chance of a successful third-party bid.

Both FPTP and the EC are designed such that the "optimal" strategy is a two-party system and actively quashes the efficacy and viability of third parties. (Single-member districts do too while we're at it.) They all encourage the formation of political parties and for the state to try and settle into two major parties that smother and consume any burgeoning attempt at a third party - because quite literally a third party bid can only play spoiler for the side closer to it ideologically, benefiting the "worse" option.

Now, let's say you replace FPTP with RCV (again doesn't have to be RCV but it's probably the easiest to understand and likeliest replacement) the Electoral College still serves as the final obstacle in creating a successful third party because it itself is a constitutionally enshrined FPTP system that determines the presidency. I'm not coming for it because of how it overturns the popular vote (though that's also a good reason it should go!) I'm just saying it is an impediment to breaking the two-party system and if you want to toss that you need to toss the EC too.

That's all. I wasn't talking about either of these policies in any way except their impact on how/why America is locked into a two major party system since "why can't we have a third party that isn't Dems/GOP?" came up for the umpteenth time in the discussion last night.

Voting day needs to be a national day off before any mandatory voting

Yeah there should be a package of democratic reforms across democracies, not just the United States, that includes:

-Compulsory Voting.
-Automatic Voter Registration.
-Not voting on work days.
-Citizens Assemblies.

And more. These all seem much easier to implement in America than eliminating the electoral college, which I agree with but seems unlikely.

LightningStrikes posted...

Yeah there should be a package of democratic reforms across democracies, not just the United States, that includes:

-Compulsory Voting.
-Automatic Voter Registration.
-Not voting on work days.
-Citizens Assemblies.

And more. These all seem much easier to implement in America than eliminating the electoral college, which I agree with but seems unlikely.

Eliminating the EC only feels more unlikely to you because of the formality of requiring a Constitutional Amendment. And yes, that is a big hurdle. But as someone who actually lives here, let me make something perfectly clear. Due to cultural biases compulsory voting is no less of a hurdle and possibly even more so.

Abolishing EC is definitely way more viable than some other ideas. You just need a populist who is willing to do something that is short-term bad for their party, in order to make history. I would not be surprised if Trump pushed for it as he gets more desperate and senile, for example.

I also have to ask, if compulsory voting is such a slam dunk idea, why does it not have more widespread adoption in Europe? I guarantee its an easier sell there.

RCV is NEVER happening nationally. NEVER. I live in a liberal bastion and there's pushback on RCV here from seemingly liberal people because it's not "perfect".

Now imagine half the country being (maybe literally) up in arms because the person ranked 2nd or 3rd after the first round wins.

Seanchan posted...

Now imagine half the country being (maybe literally) up in arms because the person ranked 2nd or 3rd after the first round wins.

*looks at EC*

i am trying

(You're right getting it implemented is impractical. But the major reason is that elections, even at the federal level, are controlled by the states - so you'd need to pass it 50 times)

Thorn posted...

*looks at EC*

i am trying

(You're right getting it implemented is impractical. But the major reason is that elections, even at the federal level, are controlled by the states - so you'd need to pass it 50 times)

Each state can implement individually though, its not all or nothing.

redrocket posted...

I also have to ask, if compulsory voting is such a slam dunk idea, why does it not have more widespread adoption in Europe? I guarantee its an easier sell there.

Define widespread, because there are a number of countries that do like Belgium, Greece and Turkey. As for why not more, I suspect it is mostly a lack of political will. I can definitely see it getting passed by a Labour government in the UK as a form of electoral reform since there is big appetite for a form of electoral reform in the party and this is something that helps them
and is not PR.

redrocket posted...

and ironically also applies to Presidential elections while the EC remains in place.

It would be kinda funny for the EC to be abolished this way. Every state individually adopts RCV for presidential elections, and it makes things so inconvenient (e.g. Zohran but on a much bigger scale) that both major parties try to get their states to revert to FPTP. But no individual state wants to be the one to go back on it first, because it would hurt the state politicians. So RCV continues to grow and spread. Until there's a critical mass where the entire country decides to pass an amendment against the EC, just so the feds are able to block RCV for national elections.

foolm0r0n posted...

It would be kinda funny for the EC to be abolished this way. Every state individually adopts RCV for presidential elections, and it makes things so inconvenient (e.g. Zohran but on a much bigger scale) that both major parties try to get their states to revert to FPTP. But no individual state wants to be the one to go back on it first, because it would hurt the state politicians. So RCV continues to grow and spread. Until there's a critical mass where the entire country decides to pass an amendment against the EC, just so the feds are able to block RCV for national elections.

I feel that if RCV ever got that much momentum that the purpose of an amendment to abolish the EC would not be anti-RCV

We will never abolish the EC through our current system of government.

Uh, I think the idea of a few states implementing RCV leading to third party wins in a handful of states would serve the major parties just fine. Remember, if no one reaches 270 EVs then the House picks out of the top 3 Electoral vote getters, so since presumably the major parties would still control Congress they could just freeze out the third party candidate and the presidential election would just default to a "which (major) party won the most House seats"

This is the exact reason why I say you'd have to get rid of the EC for a third party to truly break through.

...which wouldn't actually be terrible except for the fact that the current House is distorted - even if not to grotesque Senate levels - by the Apportionment Act that capped it at 435 seats.

Leafeon13N posted...

We will never abolish the EC through our current system of government.

If we're defining abolish in the technical sense of "amend the Constitution to get rid of it" then absolutely not that'll never happen. But something like the interstate popular vote compact is still plausible even if it feels more unlikely these days.

Thorn posted...

so since presumably the major parties would still control Congress

Remember, Congressional elections can also be RCV. Theres nothing stopping any state or states from doing this now.

redrocket posted...

Remember, Congressional elections can also be RCV. Theres nothing stopping any state or states from doing this now.

In this hypothetical of "a few states go RCV and cause third parties to do better" I'm assuming enough states still aren't RCV such that the major parties retain control nationally through them.

I mean the hypothetical isnt really that a few states do it and it just stops there. The hypothetical is that a few states do it and it gains momentum. I mean, how else are you even realistically proposing that these reforms would ever happen??

British government just decided to pick a fight with 4chan: https://youtu.be/Yq8pCsEsAhE

I thought 4chan died earlier this year because it was built on two potatoes and a soggy tube sock?

FFDragon posted...

I thought 4chan died earlier this year because it was built on two potatoes and a soggy tube sock?

Somehow, 4chan returned.

tag

Trump is now taking advice on "honest elections" from *checks notes* Putin - and says he will issue an executive order to ban mail-in voting and voting machines for the 2026 midterms.

https://bsky.app/profile/marcelias.bsky.social/post/3lwofua76ic2l
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-putin-agrees-with-him-us-should-not-have-mail-in-voting-2025-08-16/

Reuters reports...

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agrees with him that letting voters send in ballots by mail puts honest elections at risk.

"Vladimir Putin, smart guy, said you can't have an honest election with mail-in voting," Trump told Fox News Channel's "Hannity" after a nearly three-hour meeting between the leaders in Alaska. "He said there's not a country in the world that uses it now."

Also from his social media screed on how he's going to ban mail-in voting and voting machines...

"Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."

states rights!

glad to hear that actually the president is a king now and represents the entirety of the federal government and the states must obey him

Thorn posted...

Trump is now taking advice on "honest elections" from *checks notes* Putin - and says he will issue an executive order to ban mail-in voting and voting machines for the 2026 midterms.

He doesn't want those machines because Musk rigged them for him. If Musk could afford to rig them then other people can too. He knows he pissed off a lot of wealthy people.

I generally support banning mail-in voting except for people who are genuinely absent from their state on Election Day or who physically cannot make it to a polling place. Trump is wrong that the States are agents for the Federal Government in running elections though. He should check the Constitution - it says something very different.

No reason to ban voting by mail. Its voter suppression. This country is already a big enough failure letting people run in districts they dont even live in and not punishing them all at when they do

red_sox_777 posted...

He should check the Constitution

How silly to suggest to Republicans.

Anything that keeps him on this side of the "elections will actually happen in 2026 and 2028" line is good to me

The thing about banning postal votes is that it is more used by older voters who tend to lean right on average. So this is basically disenfranchising your own voters.

LightningStrikes posted...

The thing about banning postal votes is that it is more used by older voters who tend to lean right on average. So this is basically disenfranchising your own voters.

listen I dont follow things like that closely so I could be wrong here but uh, dont results by and large skew demward when mail ins get counted

Wasnt that just in 2020 because of COVID?

LightningStrikes posted...

Wasnt that just in 2020 because of COVID?

It's going to be that way for the foreseeable future because Republicans have learned that it's unpatriotic and sketchy to vote by mail, while Democrats think it's good. I believe in Arizona, which had mail-in voting long before 2020, yes, mail-in votes tended to skew Republican.

foolm0r0n posted...

Anything that keeps him on this side of the "elections will actually happen in 2026 and 2028" line is good to me

US elections are extremely rigged on a good day with a normal president, there's a lot of space for them to "actually happen" but not matter.

A modern dictatorship will do agood job convincing people that there are actually fair elections.

red_sox_777 posted...

It's going to be that way for the foreseeable future because Republicans have learned that it's unpatriotic and sketchy to vote by mail, while Democrats think it's good. I believe in Arizona, which had mail-in voting long before 2020, yes, mail-in votes tended to skew Republican.

Yeah after taking a quick look early/mail-in voting in 2024 was slightly more registered Republican than average though hard to tell what the breakdown of independents was. Also more older voters that way. If Trump hadnt spent four years trying to delegitimise postal voting maybe it would have had a heavily Republican lean!

Kenri posted...

US elections are extremely rigged on a good day with a normal president, there's a lot of space for them to "actually happen" but not matter.

Leafeon13N posted...

A modern dictatorship will do agood job convincing people that there are actually fair elections.

Yep. Even North Korea has elections. In the case of the US I doubt it will ever be like that, but instead like Turkey. Still real elections with real votes but just stacking the deck as much in your favour as possible. The opposition can win but its extremely hard to do so.

I want voting to require some effort, so that only people who care will vote. I want elections decided by people who care, not by people who don't. Like, you can imagine there are voters out there who are apolitical but if you forced them to vote, will vote for whichever party will promise them the biggest tax cut/biggest increase in handouts, even if they're only offering $100 extra per year (in terms of net benefit to pocketbook) above the other party's offer. The best thing for the country is if these people just stay home and don't vote, so that we have a better chance of having more intelligent laws and policies.

red_sox_777 posted...

I want voting to require some effort, so that only people who care will vote. I want elections decided by people who care, not by people who don't. Like, you can imagine there are voters out there who are apolitical but if you forced them to vote, will vote for whichever party will promise them the biggest tax cut/biggest increase in handouts, even if they're only offering $100 extra per year (in terms of net benefit to pocketbook) above the other party's offer. The best thing for the country is if these people just stay home and don't vote, so that we have a better chance of having more intelligent laws and policies.

Decent idea as long as Election Day becomes a national holiday.

Just push for every state to have at least a week of early voting availability.

You mean so the Republicans can ban early voting because its cheating too?

Every election I read about people waiting hours to vote and they legit feel like headlines from a third-world country. Just completely alien from my Californian experience where even before mail-in ballots became standard (a godsend) I've never had to stand in line for any longer than ~5 mins to cast my vote.

Voting in California feels in many ways like what I would imagine voting in a third world country to feel like. First and foremost, there are many races where in the general election, there are only candidates from one party (the Democrats) on the ballot. If the intent is to force people to vote in the "primary," then they should rename the "primary" as "General Election Round 1."

Kenri posted...

US elections are extremely rigged on a good day with a normal president, there's a lot of space for them to "actually happen" but not matter.

Well yeah, speaking of Putin especially. But that's still better than a dictatorship where elections don't happen at all, which is definitely on the table. Although I only think it's better cuz I'm tired of this shit.

red_sox_777 posted...

Voting in California feels in many ways like what I would imagine voting in a third world country to feel like. First and foremost, there are many races where in the general election, there are only candidates from one party (the Democrats) on the ballot. If the intent is to force people to vote in the "primary," then they should rename the "primary" as "General Election Round 1."

How about, the other party runs credible candidates and stops whining? Isn't it a jungle primary anyway? If an R can't get past Round 1, that's their own damn fault.

Try voting in a red state

red_sox_777 posted...

Voting in California feels in many ways like what I would imagine voting in a third world country to feel like. First and foremost, there are many races where in the general election, there are only candidates from one party (the Democrats) on the ballot. If the intent is to force people to vote in the "primary," then they should rename the "primary" as "General Election Round 1."

Like this doesn't happen for Republicans in like every state in the South

The would require me living in a red state and fuck that noise

Seanchan posted...

How about, the other party runs credible candidates and stops whining? Isn't it a jungle primary anyway? If an R can't get past Round 1, that's their own damn fault.

A jungle primary is NOT a primary! It is the first round of a general election. Calling it a primary disenfranchises everyone who is misled by the name "primary" into thinking that it is not a general election, and who consequently does not vote in it.

red_sox_777 posted...

A jungle primary is NOT a primary! It is the first round of a general election. Calling it a primary disenfranchises everyone who is misled by the name "primary" into thinking that it is not a general election, and who consequently does not vote in it.

If it's a name thing, sure, change that.

On the other side, you literally just said "I want voting to require some effort, so that only people who care will vote. I want elections decided by people who care, not by people who don't". Who the fuck do you think is voting in primaries other than engaged voters?!? Especially in an area where the primary is, for all intents and purposes, the general!

oooooh got 'em