US Election 2020

[pErvinalia]

'Murika.. fuck yeah!

[Sean Hayden]

You have such a weird fucking system. We have a highly professional independent Electoral Commission that handles everything to do with voting at all levels. Parties appoint their own scrutineers, but they are purely observers, and I don't remember any protests from scrutineers or controversies whatsoever. You have an antiquated system that is creaking and showing its horse and buggy age...

Yeah right, except there hasn't been an issue with the election that exist anywhere outside the mind of the lunatic in charge, and his followers, and and, they're here whatever system we use. For a bit of perspective, just a handful of states with elections that ran perfectly see more votes cast than there are voters in Australia.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, because voter disenfranchisement doesn't happen in the US...

[Sean Hayden]

Of course it does, and it comes up every election. Texas Republicans limited the ballot drop-off locations to one per county for example. That's not a requirement of our system though.

Also, the complaints about this election from the right, and what has been addressed here, is the idea of massive fraud and confusion about the elections, which is manufactured bs from the Republicans.

[JimC]

You have such a weird fucking system. We have a highly professional independent Electoral Commission that handles everything to do with voting at all levels. Parties appoint their own scrutineers, but they are purely observers, and I don't remember any protests from scrutineers or controversies whatsoever. You have an antiquated system that is creaking and showing its horse and buggy age...

Yeah right, except there hasn't been an issue with the election that exist anywhere outside the mind of the lunatic in charge, and his followers, and and, they're here whatever system we use. For a bit of perspective, just a handful of states with elections that ran perfectly see more votes cast than there are voters in Australia.

I think that with a different, totally independent system, the ability of partisan party politics to reach in and corrupt the system would be minimal, even with a demagog in charge....
And since an electoral commission like ours also monitors and alters electoral boundaries as demographics change, the gerrymandering can also disappear...

[Sean Hayden]

It's about the people.

I'm not convinced you can say much about the system while lunatics are in control. It's as simple as garbage in garbage out. I know you've got crazies in Australia too, conservative loons, but they obviously don't enjoy power or the base of support to the extent that they do here. If you should ever be so unfortunate as to be in that position, your system may fail to protect you. The bastids will just change it.

Look at the UK. I've been listening to their bullshit about what could, would, never happen there forever. But the ranks of the loony right have swelled and suddenly they can't prevent obvious mistakes like putting leaving the EU to a vote!

[JimC]

I disagree, Sean. We certainly have some right-wing loonies here, but the electoral system itself is independent of party politics. If a political movement became powerful enough to subvert it, we would already be a dictatorship anyway...

I take your point that when your Democrats and Republicans are mostly playing by the civilised rulebook, as in the past, then your system can creak along OK (albeit with constant attempts by state-based party politics to gerrymander electoral boundaries, but that seems to be a game played by both sides to little general surprise...). But you have no defence other than the moral constraints of a few (like the Republican in Pennsylvania resisting pressure) when fascist wannabes start pushing...

[Sean Hayden]

But what is any defense other than the people in charge of enforcing and maintaining it?

Consider what it will take to get your system here. Can we just write it up and make it law?

No, it will take a change in the people, who will then draft a system reflecting their values and will that these protections exist etc.

You don't just have a system that protects you, you currently have the necessary political will too.

It's all about the people....by all I mean mostly...

[JimC]

I think that it's highly unlikely that you will change your system - state's rights will be invoked.

The best you can hope for is a revulsion by the general population over blatant partisan interference, good oversight by the media, and an outbreak of ethics in your elected officials...

Wait, what the fuck am I thinking. Basically, you're screwed...

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not hopeful Jim. The things the Republicans are letting Trump say don't lead anywhere good.

[Seabass]

You have such a weird fucking system. We have a highly professional independent Electoral Commission that handles everything to do with voting at all levels. Parties appoint their own scrutineers, but they are purely observers, and I don't remember any protests from scrutineers or controversies whatsoever. You have an antiquated system that is creaking and showing its horse and buggy age...

You'll never guess which party has been trying to update and secure our election systems and which party has put the kibosh on all of it.

For the People Act of 2019

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.

The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.

This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.

This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... use-bill/1

Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019

This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices in these areas may take effect. (Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.)

A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if (1) 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years; or (2) 10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least one of which was committed by the state itself. A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.

A state or political subdivision that obtains a declaratory judgment that it has not used a voting practice to deny or abridge the right to vote shall be exempt from preclearance.

All jurisdictions must preclear changes to requirements for documentation to vote that make the requirements more stringent than federal requirements for voters who register by mail or state law.

The bill specifies practices jurisdictions meeting certain thresholds regarding racial minority groups, language minority groups, or minority groups on Indian land, must preclear before implementing. These practices include changes to methods of election, changes to jurisdiction boundaries, redistricting, changes to voting locations and opportunities, and changes to voter registration list maintenance.

The bill expands the circumstances under which (1) a court may retain the authority to preclear voting changes made by a state or political subdivision, or (2) the Department of Justice may assign election observers.

States and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.

The bill revises the circumstances under which a court must grant preliminary injunctive relief in a challenge to voting practices.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... use-bill/4

[Brian Peacock]

Of course it does, and it comes up every election. Texas Republicans limited the ballot drop-off locations to one per county for example. That's not a requirement of our system though.

Also, the complaints about this election from the right, and what has been addressed here, is the idea of massive fraud and confusion about the elections, which is manufactured bs from the Republicans.

It's very hard to make the moral argument for those kind of tactics, which is why the spectre of fraud is needed. As I've said before, the main problem here is that there's little to no political independence in the systems and the primary source of information for US citizen about politics and democratic institutions and processes etc comes from political parties themselves - and their collaborators in the media of course. I can understand the argument that, say, a State's un-elected electoral commissioner could wield their powers in potentially unaccountable ways, but that's an argument for transparent regulation and oversight rather than for appointments based on party affiliation via a popular ballot.

Against a background where political parties align and promote themselves along identity lines -- we're a party for people like 'us' and if you vote us in we'll make sure we represent your interests ahead of the interests of the other lot -- the idea of independence in the operation and administrative systems of power quickly goes out the window.

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up. At the moment those who attain power by the system are the last people who are inclined to re-examine or change the system, but there was a time when those systems didn't exist and had to be built from the ground up. Essentially this is a constitutional matter and needs addressing as such - which is just to say that it's a matter fundamental to the operation and well-being society and not just a legal matter to be argued over by people who already seek/have the power to create, review, revoke and enforce law.

Speaking less generally, the reverence in which the US constitution is held in the popular mind of America seems like a major barrier to progress to me. Constitutions are not holy, sacred documents but formal definitions of how society is supposed to operate. A programmed means of constitutional review is not akin to undermining or negating the absolute word of God but an acknowledgement that societies change over time. But is there anyone in US politics calling for a constitutional review?

I seem to have wandered somewhat from my initial point, but I count myself as a constitutional republican (small R) from a country which famously doesn't have a written constitution. Of course, when I talk about a republic I'm thinking of an anarchist republic - but that's just me.

[Tero]

He's hunkered fown. Only after the electoral vote will he go to Mar a Lago

[Tero]

Trump wasting 3 million of faithful supporter money:

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign said it will file for a partial recount in Wisconsin to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory there.
The Trump campaign wired $3 million to Wisconsin election officials ahead of the recount request.
Legal analysts give Trump little hope of overturning Biden’s win nationally, through either recounts or lawsuits.

[Sean Hayden]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

For example, a transparent system relies on people responding to what they see in a particular way. Corruption is rampant in our politics. It is not hidden. But the public does not respond in the way that people who advocate for transparency would hope. Many do, but not enough. They lack what is required by such a system to ensure it works. Furthermore, they are divided as to what constitutes corruption in the first place, and from those divisions you may eventually find support to undermine protections anyway.

--//--

I'm not arguing against making changes, or saying that nothing is better than what we have. My point has been that it's difficult to judge the system while lunatics are running it, and the people are more important than the system.