Printable View
You're going to have to elaborate because that's simply not true without more detail. The popular vote of the individuals determines who goes to represent them in federal government, except in presidential elections where it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunlap
You might want to rethink what you just typed.
No that is absolutely wrong. There is a large group of officials that DOES NOT EVEN WANT TO GOVERN AND IS PROVING IT ON A DAILY BASIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
That has nothing to do with "adversaries". If you want to be some slackjawed dicksmoke working at a 7/11 doing fuck all, then have at it. If you want to be a leader, then start actually LEADING. Case in point:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sc...oss-2018-07-20
Just did. I'm still right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
From what I understand not all states get an equal number by design — states with more population tend to get more delegates in general but it doesn't just outright scale with population. States with less % of the national population still get a guarantee of 3 or whatever. So this means states is a less population density still have their way of life and ideas represented on the larger national stage because their choice of delegate (should they win) has a modifier on it (Vermonts 3 delegates are worth 3x more per individual than New York's but New York still has more than 9). If I have the concept right that's still normalization from state to state because it caps densely packed population centres and curves up lesser packed populations. Else no one from Nebraska or Montana would ever have a say in their own affairs otherwise (and "who gives a fuck about those hicks" probably isn't a legitimate idea in spite of the outrage atm).Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It's a bit strange it's winner-takes-all-delegates. If delegates were split up by local populate vote that MIGHT be a good compromise if local popular split differs from national popular split. If local regions have the same Dem/Rep split as the national split then that would just be a popular vote system. I suspect that it probably true—so it has to kind of be the way it is.
I'm just repeating what I quoted before. There wouldn't have been this much outrage about the electoral collage if Hillary had won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Well hold up a second. Would they complain about the electoral college itself? No. They need that. It's essential for Republican victory. But they would find a nice loophole so they could complain about it. Something along the lines of it being illegitimate or corrupt or something else. Look to Jim Jordan's language when describing his reasoning for the Rosenstein articles as an example. Real quaint, Technically Correct™ loopholes.
There, I fixed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I think a lot of people forget we are 50 self governed states in a union similar to the EU.
The popular vote of the State* determines who the state votes for.
The state has X amount of votes 50% depending on population 50% equally.
*Kansas and Maine are exceptions which split their vote.
People have railed against the electoral college for as long as I can remember. It's an antiquated system.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
This is pretty much true at this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
What’s sad is this is true. The American population has become dumber, so we do need a dumber voting system their feeble minds can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I don't know, "one person = one vote" seems simpler since people don't seem to be on the same page as to how it works.
Yeah, there's no way anyone's vote would count less by going with a simple system like that.
Popular vote winners have gotten screwed over 5 times by the electoral college. These 5 were all Democrats.
That 50 separate state elections decide the national winner is senseless, especially when there are gimmes in there for both sides like Texas (R) & California (D).
Decision by popular vote would be more fair, making it so all candidates must campaign in all states.
Hillary had 43% of Texas' presidential vote but ended up with nothing to show for it. Trump had 52% & took all. If this alone doesn't show how broken the electoral college system is, what will?
The issues and ideals of large cities would mandate the rest of the country. If that's OK with you then this system works. I don't think that's accurately representative of problems and perspectives.
Recipe for revolt.
Instead of the issues and ideals of the minority of America? Yeah, I think that sounds better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
There are local representatives, you know. And it seems like they are interested in investigating Hillary for Benghazi (and turning up zero indictments). So not sure what your point is...
Texas will probably eventually go D. At which time, it will be time to split those votes too. Hey Dallas, you get two votes, which is better than Bumfucktown, you only get one. See? Compromise!
Someone raising cattle or growing soy in Nebraska has problems and an undersized influence. How do they get a chance in your popular vote system? Should they matter? Move to a city? Become a hipster sipping lattes in pants cut short so you can see they’re wearing no socks Ooh so enlightened.
I’ve yet to hear a good reason to remove the college outside of “it benefits my ideas of the majority!” when that’s kind of the problem.
Then why do most minority groups vote D? (Bonus question: Why do Rs do everything they can to prevent them from voting?)
In other words: You are arbitrarily defining a minority.
Their vote would count the same regardless of where they lived. The system in place now means that citizens in the most populous states need to move to a fly-over state in order for their vote to count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
You are saying, because there are fewer of them, they have less influence? How is it undersized? What determines the proper size. I would say they have more of a voice than I do at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
have you tried hot water with lemon?
It would be neat to see what would happen if there was just a blind vote based on a short questionnaire. You fill out your feelings on several issues and general moral stances on a sliding scale of important/not important/okay/not acceptable/etc., the candidates do the same, it casts your vote with whoever best matches up with you on aggregate.
I suspect a lot of religious folks would end up very surprised at how terribly the morals they put on paper align with the brand of politician they usually vote for, with the names obscured and the Rs and Ds cast aside.
Though, of course, the problem candidates would just lie their positions to still match up with those voters. Maybe like, a third party grades their responses indirectly based on their historical data on those issues? I dunno.
Anyway, pipe dream, but a nice thought.
No I am not. I’m choosing a common behaviour to a region and asking if this perspective should be considered. Your answer isn’t direct but found in the choice of the term “bumblefuck”. It was once a majority perspective that people of colour shouldn’t be allowed to own property. And that gays were just mentally ill. Also that small businesses shouldn’t pay any income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
And to kedawa saying their votes would count the same: right that’s the problem. Their votes would ALWAYS get drowned out by the issues of dense urban centres. That’s the point of normalization. Those states still have less influence overall but the college at least gives them a shot.
Why would Montana be a part of the Unity of States without representation? You’re literally advocating the fracturing of the makeup of America. “But Trump won!” Isn’t a good enough reason because although a terrible pres it was business as intended. Hilary bungled a lot of campaigning in these very delegate battleground states.
They do have more influence than you per vote. But overall you still have 29 delegates to their 3-4. It’s not like population density counts for 0. It just doesn’t count for 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
What about the people in those less populated states who don't vote with that state's majority?
I think I'd rather it be my vote that counts than my state's vote.
A) I live in MaineQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
B) The conversation I joined in was about how the electoral college lessens and now regularly negates the impact of the popular vote in favor of giving less populated states greater voting power. In local/state elections one vote = one vote. In national elections one vote = a variable number depending on the state it's from.
If a zillion people on the coast, vs. a hundred thousand in the middle, vote for the representative of the whole US it should probably go to the zillion. The middle still has plenty of representation on the local and state level. That the whole fucking point of local government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
arbitraryQuote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
and again, local govt
why is my edit post not working?
no, because Republicans have won the popular voteQuote:
asking if this perspective should be considered
I fixed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
The union picks a president by a majority of state votes. How the state votes is determined by the state. To be fair to the states with larger populations, the union agreed 81% of a state’s weight is determined by population. or 439 electoral college votes. Only 19% or 100 votes are divided equally. You greedy fucks are complaining about a dime out of a dollar.
What if taxes were the same? You’re arguing for a flat tax when you’re in the top 20% of earners paying 32%.
No, no you didn't fix anything. You're being obtuse on purpose. If one vote = one vote we'd have Clinton at president. A 2.1% difference in favor of Clinton should not have resulted in 57.2% of the electoral college going to Trump and 42.7% to Clinton. This is the result of a broken system.
See, Drew's argument is perfectly reasonable. Bringing up the weight of majority views about things like slavery and homosexuality is important and great context. The electoral college, however, is an old answer. We are facing new problems and the electoral college is a way to stymie progress & solving those new problems. Yet the popular vote, too, feels like an old answer. It's better than the electoral college for current needs, for sure. I wish I could put my finger on it. I just know we're still trying to solve things the way we always have, but we need like some Common Core for society or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
EDIT: Forgot the main thing! Even if the zillion liberals were to overrun everything, I don't see any reason why they would be like, "Lol farmers," and ignore important industries. I guess that may be due to my political viewpoint, but whatever.
Actually I do agree delegates should be divvied out according to local population party splits. It looks like it differs from the national norm. And it would still help different regions get representation. Joust can yell his uninformed “it’s arbitrary!” all he wants but I’ve given both state and municipal examples of the problem with how people are organized (literally an actual border not chosen on whim). One dense city like New York City with a population of 8 million cannot accurately rep the needs of Wisconsin (5 million across the entire state).Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
That rebalancing of power is a feature.
No, it’s not. One of many contributing factors to Hilary’s loss was that she didn’t spend any time listening or campaigning in battleground states. Having politicians at least somewhat interested in less popular parts of the country is a great thing. My initial problem with this conversation (and why I decided to play devils advocate here) was because of just how self serving you and Joust are being. It’s transpsrent the message behind “popular vote!” is “fuck you guys for voting Trump!”Quote:
Originally Posted by James
It truly is not an honest or just position to begin reform from.
While it is true they set a minimum number of delgates so that underpopulated states are still represented, it has affected the outcome of zero elections in American history. That's not a conjecture, it's a historical fact that states with the min delegates have never been the deciding votes EVER. The fact that Wyoming gets 3 delegates instead of 0.6 or whatever is not nearly as much of an issue as the fact that millions and millions of Republican voters in California, or Democratic voters in Texas do not get their votes counted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Think it through, man. No they don't. In making the giant, populous states into a huge bloc, it further marginalizes those small states. If they split delegates based on population (as a couple states do), then what you're saying might be nominally true, but as it stands now, this is a completely bullshit talking point with no basis in reality whatsoever.Quote:
So this means states is a less population density still have their way of life and ideas represented on the larger national stage
It's also not one of the things that was argued by the people that designed the system. The actual intent was because Hamilton didn't trust the population to not elect a moron, so he wanted to instill a safeguard to override their vote if they did. For good or bad, elitism is the reason we don't have a popular vote election, not protecting dirt farmers views.
NO SHIT?Quote:
It's a bit strange it's winner-takes-all-delegates. If delegates were split up by local populate vote that MIGHT be a good compromise if local popular split differs from national popular split.
lol.
yep. best part is, they fucked up this time.Quote:
The actual intent was because Hamilton didn't trust the population to not elect a moron, so he wanted to instill a safeguard to override their vote if they did.
nope. local government.Quote:
way of life
"We're going to solve the problem of the nation's popular vote superseding the will of each state by having the popular vote of each state supersede the will of the individual."
Brilliant!
I think there are bigger problems than just the ones discussed so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bigger issue with the current system is that it is biased towards the unemployed? Primarily retired whites? It seems like the electoral votes based early voters. Like, almost every state picks someone before all the invidual votes are counted.
Maybe a little time delay for the votes to all be counted and the ec to actually mull over what they are about to do?
Also, maybe we finally need to adopt a neither option? I'm sure a lot of Republican felt forced to vote trump.
Of course, trump is proof that the religious right's faith is non existent. They could have organized a write in. But they had no faith in their country or god. They settled on slime.
But then we can't have Live Local Latebreaking coverage on Election night and sell all that ad time.
Good
That's nice, but this is Capitalism, babycakes. Don't get your hopes up.
This is pretty rad. Especially the 3d prisms, dasymetric dots, and value-by-alpha.
http://carto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Mi...f5ad8d0c62c32#
It is 100% biased toward white retirees, those in safe and accessible neighborhoods or those who are in job positions that allow for paid time off. This is going to eliminate anyone in a service job, or low level wage job. Without mandated voting holidays and ACCESSIBLE VOTING (no ridiculous jump-through-hoops ID checks, voting booths within walking distance of everyone, polls closing too early, etc) we will continue to have a lack of a true democratic process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Anecdotal: I have lived/voted in 3 different areas now, 2 middle-upper white areas, 1 lower end area. The lower end polling booth in a predominately black neighborhood was impossible to get to from my house, it was a mile and a half away, you had to basically cross a freeway to get there. I didn't vote in that election, it was impossible without a car. I used to live near Sac State college, and that was a middle of the road state college. Mixed race neighborhood, relatively middle class. My closest polling place periodically moved around, usually between 0.75 miles (no big) and 2 miles away (absolutely impossible to reach without a car, geographically speaking.) There was no way students in my complex could get to vote without a car, and I assume most of them didn't vote. The third place, my current residence, is upper middle, all white. My polling place is probably 1000 feet away. I can throw a rock and hit it. This is all California too. So I can only imagine if I have minor, minor difficulties with transportation, what it means for those with little means in other areas.
Point being, we have some huge problems with accessibility. This will continue to result in an unrepresentative majority dictating the winners of elections. I also 100% agree with a delay in vote results until all have been counted, but we can't do that with the current news cycle. In CA and HI, many people will simply give up and not vote because results have already been announced on the east coast and midwest. While this may not be a big deal in say, a presidential election, it stops people from voting on other local and state issues as well.
Neither option is already taken care of, (write in candidate, left blank, etc.) I think the idea of a neither option could work if we made it clear that the option was for data-driven results, but truly no one HAS to check a box. They can show up and turn in an empty ballot and the data will still reflect that ____ people from that area showed up to vote.
I just received ballots in the mail. Do they not do that in California?
Check out Mr. Address Having Privilege over here!
In Ontario we just have polling stations in every neighbourhood, in a public building like a school or a library.
It's not a hard problem to solve.
We don't fund schools or libraries so they close down a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
You know, I mailed in my ballot for the first time last time. Why are even remotely able citizens going to a polling place? We need to get this garbage online.
Polling place is the library, you can read a book while you wait to use the internet.
Gotta walk to the post office to get the double special stamp. 49 cents x2, that may be a meal for some. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it’s a barrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Oh, and agree 100% about putting it online.
jesus, what a headache that would be.
Nevermind the inevitable CONSTANT hacking attempts, have we all forgotten how great and reliable Obama’s website was?
If freakin Nordstrom Rack can install a secure server, I am sure we can figure something out. The tech is there, but the problem is we don’t want to support the underlying infrastructure to make it work.
That sums up America nicely.
It's more nefarious than that as we have an entire party that actively wants to make voting harder so they can stay in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
I think online voting might be under a bit more fire than fucking Nordstrom’s.
Absolutely no online voting. No electronic voting of any kind. No. No. No.
I believe this. As much as I like the idea of online voting, it'll most surely have to wait until we get the next Democratic president. :(
Yes, there are the security concerns- but sending your POTUS & congressional votes by mail wouldn't be a problem. For local elections, online should be OK. I doubt Russia & China care about state governors or city/village mayors.
Online voting would need 2-factor ID, & also a CAPTCHA system to fend off bots.
You’re worried about the poor and minorities getting to a voting booth, but you think they’ll get online no problem.
Just go to Starbucks, no problem.
see a lot of starbucks in the inner city do ya?
well, they probably have smart phones
TNL is running like shit and ate my totally fire reply. I'll try again, with less vigor this time.
Long story short, yes, more people have mobile phones and internet access than transportation. Poor, older minorities are the class that is most likely to have neither. There will need to be accommodated to with local voting booths. Hell, door to door electronic voting even. "Hey Mrs. so and so, we're mandated from the state to make sure you vote today." If we were to divert resources and volunteers from rich suburban neighborhoods to poorer ones, that would be great. The far bigger problem is people in low level service jobs/school who cannot afford the time to vote. If they do not have private transportation that makes this 1000x as hard.
Online voting will happen, and to bury your head in a sand and go "no no bad tech bad" is a very not good idea. We entrust our credit cards to Starbucks, our personal health data to insurance conglomerates, and suddenly voting is the last bastion of the old country? No. It needs to be addressed, and addressed now, with transparency and thorough research. If we do not lay the framework for a well-developed system, it will be sold to the highest bidder and all of a sudden one day we'll be voting via Coke or something. (Actually didn't that happen already?)
But yeah, we need to address this head on, and soon.
TNL is running like shit and ate my totally fire reply. I'll try again, with less vigor this time.
Long story short, yes, more people have mobile phones and internet access than transportation. Poor, older minorities are the class that is most likely to have neither. There will need to be accommodated to with local voting booths. Hell, door to door electronic voting even. "Hey Mrs. so and so, we're mandated from the state to make sure you vote today." If we were to divert resources and volunteers from rich suburban neighborhoods to poorer ones, that would be great. The far bigger problem is people in low level service jobs/school who cannot afford the time to vote. If they do not have private transportation that makes this 1000x as hard.
Online voting will happen, and to bury your head in a sand and go "no no bad tech bad" is a very not good idea. We entrust our credit cards to Starbucks, our personal health data to insurance conglomerates, and suddenly voting is the last bastion of the old country? No. It needs to be addressed, and addressed now, with transparency and thorough research. If we do not lay the framework for a well-developed system, it will be sold to the highest bidder and all of a sudden one day we'll be voting via Coke or something. (Actually didn't that happen already?)
But yeah, we need to address this head on, and soon.
When I read what you say it comes out as "Hillary didn't game a broken system, therefore the system is fine." It's not a compelling argument. There's absolutely no question Hillary fucked up bad with a terrible ground game, though. A lot went wrong in a lot of different ways, and she didn't fight Fox News anywhere near hard enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Also, fuck you guys for voting Trump. He's exactly the person today you could see he'd be in 2016. There are no surprises in the news, only grim inevitability.
How is it broken? We aren’t 1 state and we never were. Since it’s inception, the rules governing all states are roughly 80% determined by each state’s population and 20% by it’s sovereignty.
Should we make it 50%-50% to be fair? Half population - half sovereignty? Now Wyoming has 11 EC votes?
Do you want 1 State vote = 1 State vote. Now all states have 10 EC votes?
Do you want to abolish the States and just have 1 State? Congratulations, now Maine has Mississippi’ abortion laws and California’s property tax.
No James, fuck you.
(I dont think anyone here voted Trump)
Actually yes, but Seattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
No, it's a scam actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
I don't think we're ready for something as important lol as voting to go online.
Well it's a good way to get Darth Vader elected as POTUS.
You may say it’s broken, to which I disagree. But aside from that the system was a known quantity. I don’t consider the point “she didn’t give a fuck about entire areas of the country enough to show up” tied to systems problems. That’s just an anti-humanist stance. Maybe it wasn’t the intention but that’s how it came off. For the record I do wish Hilary had won. I just find it so remarkable how deluded people get about this shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Honestly, me neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
And I'm good, thanks. Your mom is a hell of a ride.
TNL in a nutshell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Click for full size
I can get behind the theoretical idea of having an internet based voting solution.
But to put it into practice with today's technology would be a logistical nightmare.
Our system isn't perfect, but you can't convince me that if people really wanted to vote- they could make it happen. We know months in advance when and where it happens, so travel arrangements and work day arrangements can be made. Mailing in a vote is an option. If certain areas of the country are trying to impede certain people's right to vote then that is most certainly something we as a country need to address.
But all that changing the way we vote will do is make them come up with another way to discourage voting, it won't make them stop.
Tapping a candidate on your app would see higher voter turnout than physical voting booths. Though you’d have to offer both (funnily enough for accessibility, to satsukis point).
FTFY. If the states don't have the right to say "well it's been real, but this union isn't working out for us anymore, peace", how can they claim to be sovereign?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
It absolutely would and we have evidence from countries that implement it. But yeah, we'd have to offer both for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
It absolutely would and we have evidence from countries that implement it. But yeah, we'd have to offer both for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I wonder if this is an application where Blockchain could be actually useful for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
“For once”
I do mostly accessibility training and user research training these days. You’ll always have a need for voting booths for the economically disenfranchised and digitally impaired. But that’s okay — people can mostly vote online. The goal is broader participation after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
Right. I'm all for it, and it's gonna happen, so we may as well plan for it. I ended up using this discussion about online voting for an assignment I did yesterday, and theres some interesting data from Estonia about I-voting, since 30% of their population votes online. https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/i-voting/
They actually have a far more advanced e-government system than we do, it's awesome. There's toonnnnssss of scholarly articles that deconstruct the I-voting process that occurred in that country, including a mess of stuff about transparency concerns. The blockchain/I-voting thing has been addressed too! https://www.economist.com/sites/defa...s/plymouth.pdf
I'm pretty jazzed that there's a lot of research being done, I hope it leads to a more accessible system for everyone.
Sats basically said a chunk of what I was going to say. But yeah- we trust basically the entire fabric of modern society to rely on the internet in order to function. Voting is special? If we do our banking online, why can't we vote online?
Of course the first time will be a disaster. The first time you do anything it's a disaster. But it's a disaster that earns you progress, unlike all the random disasters we have on a daily basis that serve no purpose. Let's try and crawl towards something.
Again, we have one of the two parties which is specifically focused on voter suppression not making voting easier so it isn't happening anytime soon. They do not want broader participation.
You're right, what a terrible time to fight back.
lol
I think, as true to this thread somewhat, Democrats will actually have a bigger pushback to online voting, due to transparency and trust issues. I feel like this may be a mistake to throw up your hands so soon in the battle, because it allows republicans to step in and propose a corporate/private solution which is infinitely worse. It's really important to support the issue because it's inevitable, but it's important to be critical of the right things. yes, republicans are terrible about voter suppression. but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater - I-voting is proven to increase participation. Let's work on the transparency issues, not nixing the whole idea entirely.
I've gone beyond giving up the battle, I've given up as a whole. We're fucked as a county and as a species as a whole. We've wrecked the planet well past the point of no return for our long term survival already and AI that we've created will rise up in the not too distant future and wipe us off the planet and it'll be right to do it.
No more tears. Change your mindset and it’s a fantastic show.
Oh I'm enjoying the ride down for sure.
Trump has threatened to shut down the federal government over that stupid border wall & immigration reform. Not surprised at all that he'd resort to outright blackmail. If this sitch leads to a shutdown, the blame belongs to him. I don't blame anyone for refusing to cave.
I do not believe there isn't a way to make online voting secure enough. It may not be easy, but they just need to get up & start looking for it.
banking works because most of the time hackers don't care about you specifically. And if they do, they shut your card down and send you a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cigsthecat
I'm not sure if that can work for voting
We can't make a flow meter for water that doesn't need calibration regularly or a version of Windows that works perfectly. We'll be ok in regards to the AIs.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
If one kills us, it will be because it was trying to make some guy waffles and it somehow fucks up and releases a massive load of radioactive material into the atmosphere by mistake.
Can he actually shut the government down?Quote:
Originally Posted by gameoverDude
And if he can, I wish all these assholes would sack up and just work for free.
You speak as if it isn’t highly probable this will happenQuote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Welcome to the group! On Wednesdays someone brings breakfast (and gets reimbursed). I'll have the secretary send you the updated schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
The President of the United States of America can just shut the federal government down. He has that power.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameoverDude
It shuts down all the time and here we are. Just fine.
Its even more likely that we'll nuke ourselves off the earth by finally fucking one of our own nukes up and the military attacking Russia, then them attacking us and so on and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Its almost happened some 80 to 120 times now. And they can't fix the process because it becomes classified before the improvements can be rolled out to lower ranking personnel.
Who needs smart or buffoonish computers when we've got that?
It's not like it would hurt them or anything. They're surely paid nice enough to suck it up for a little while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
A shame. One more case where the president has too much power. Paul Ryan & Mitch McConnell have pleaded with him not to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Oh well, let Trump keep on dirtying the Republican party's name. Maybe he'll fuck it up for Kavanaugh.
That whole voter purge thing is real, kids.
Went to go check my polling stuff for Connecticut's primary on the 14th to see if I'm able to vote in it. I am not affiliated but they passed something in 2016 that I thought was supposed to alter who could vote in primaries. Found out I am not registered to vote at all. (Also, the thing I was thinking of was an election day voter registration law.)
I sure didn’t make any special effort to register in this state, but I got a ballot in the mail.
Yeah WA and OR are great, you're registered when you update your Driver's License and all voting is via mail.
I had to register the first time here in CA and they have sent me updates ever since.