What's new

American Electoral Reform

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#76
In Israel, for it’s entire history. Ireland since rhe founding of rhe republic, Italy since it was put back together after Benito, with a note that as of 2015 felons can’t run for office.

And all three of those have a history of romanticizing criminals and thugs. Mafia, Irgun, IRA, etc...
If we had informative likes, I would have thrown it down for just this.
The US is not special, the US is just wrong. Just like everything else about it’s justice system.
Problem is the context you are ignoring. In one part of the context, the US is less a modern nation-state and more of a Holy Roman Empire that actually Federalized. A federation of States whom are a federation of counties. Another part is that the US has a very 'DEMOCRACY FUCK YEAH!' attitude and our history has told us that simply having people being instated is basically corruption waiting to happen (hence why the US justice system can be quite a mess, most Americans don't trust installed people or those that aren't elected despite everything). The Senate (and many city/town/county/state level positions) became directly elected due to the fact that more often than not the Senate's (and many town/city/county/state positions) seats were bought by Trusts than actually representative of the people (this is also something I don't like but can see the reasons why the Progressives went with it).

I am more than willing to have the entire system reformed with a scaling system (i.e. do a felony with a firearm, you loose your right to bare arms for a period fitting for the crime and have felonies not include things like illegal drug possession and use), but given US history I'm not allowing a blanket enfranchisement.
 
#77
If we had informative likes, I would have thrown it down for just this.

Problem is the context you are ignoring. In one part of the context, the US is less a modern nation-state and more of a Holy Roman Empire that actually Federalized. A federation of States whom are a federation of counties. Another part is that the US has a very 'DEMOCRACY FUCK YEAH!' attitude and our history has told us that simply having people being instated is basically corruption waiting to happen (hence why the US justice system can be quite a mess, most Americans don't trust installed people or those that aren't elected despite everything). The Senate (and many city/town/county/state level positions) became directly elected due to the fact that more often than not the Senate's (and many town/city/county/state positions) seats were bought by Trusts than actually representative of the people (this is also something I don't like but can see the reasons why the Progressives went with it).

I am more than willing to have the entire system reformed with a scaling system (i.e. do a felony with a firearm, you loose your right to bare arms for a period fitting for the crime and have felonies not include things like illegal drug possession and use), but given US history I'm not allowing a blanket enfranchisement.
It should be incredibly easy to lose your guns and incredibly hard to lose the vote, not the reverse.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#78
It should be incredibly easy to lose your guns and incredibly hard to lose the vote, not the reverse.
I'm willing to have reform, I am willing to have those who were only felons because of things like drug possession and use to be enfranchised (without other felonies like murder mind you), and I am willing to have restrictions on what is considered a felony (perhaps adopt a 'tier' system for felonies, with 'minor' felonies not having the loss of voting rights with 'major' ones having that) and restrictions on how long those rights are suspended (and that is what they'll be, a suspension, not actually taking them away... and probably add a sort of 'parole' option for said suspension), but simply blanket enfranchisement isn't the way to go from the context of US history and the current political situation IMO. US politics is very Machiavellian and Locke, especially after the Civil War where 'choose the politician, not the party' was taken out back and shot (metaphorically). Every action has to be considered as a two-edged sword with a hefty dose of unintended consequences, where it can equally cut yourself as much as it can cut the opposition while -more often than not- having unintended consequences down the road.

I am willing to have it eventually become more like Europe over time... but simply doing it immediately will only inflame the opposition due to the shear shock and attacking various vested interests that have to be annihilated first.
 
#79
I'm willing to have reform, I am willing to have those who were only felons because of things like drug possession and use to be enfranchised (without other felonies like murder mind you), and I am willing to have restrictions on what is considered a felony (perhaps adopt a 'tier' system for felonies, with 'minor' felonies not having the loss of voting rights with 'major' ones having that) and restrictions on how long those rights are suspended (and that is what they'll be, a suspension, not actually taking them away... and probably add a sort of 'parole' option for said suspension), but simply blanket enfranchisement isn't the way to go from the context of US history and the current political situation IMO. US politics is very Machiavellian and Locke, especially after the Civil War where 'choose the politician, not the party' was taken out back and shot (metaphorically). Every action has to be considered as a two-edged sword with a hefty dose of unintended consequences, where it can equally cut yourself as much as it can cut the opposition while -more often than not- having unintended consequences down the road.

I am willing to have it eventually become more like Europe over time... but simply doing it immediately will only inflame the opposition due to the shear shock and attacking various vested interests that have to be annihilated first.
Why? We already have two states that don’t do it at all, and 15 more that give rights back as soon as you get out. None of those have collapsed.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#80
Why? We already have two states that don’t do it at all, and 15 more that give rights back as soon as you get out. None of those have collapsed.
Multiple reasons; one of them is trust (by committing a felony (and no, I'm not talking about crimes like drug use and possession, those have been -at best- faux felonies just to fuck with people), you've seriously broken the public's trust), another is simply due to the Machiavellian nature of US politics where every action (including enfranchising the felons) is a double edged sword and likely rife with unintended consequences, and another is that I'm of the Locke/Hobbes end of the 'how good is humanity really' spectrum... and those are just the top three.

I am willing to have 'faux' (i.e. crimes that were upgraded to felonies just to fuck with people) felons be enfranchised, and I'm willing to have the rights suspension be (depending on the crime and rights involved) suspended at most a year or two outside the prison cell outside of special circumstances, but I am not sure that they'll simply screw us over in the long-run.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#82
You take forever to say nothing.
Trust is hard to earn, but easy to loose. That's an adage that has stood the test of time. Trust is very important in the US socially and politically. I maybe more trusting of the criminal element than the next American, but not all are all that willing to trust. It also doesn't help that political action in this country is generally either a) a double edged sword, 2) rife with unintended consequences down the road, or c) both. This is also on top of the US being less a regular nation-state and more like the Holy Roman Empire in terms of politics and law (which practically everyone who is for reform forgets).
 
#84
Trust is hard to earn, but easy to loose. That's an adage that has stood the test of time. Trust is very important in the US socially and politically. I maybe more trusting of the criminal element than the next American, but not all are all that willing to trust. It also doesn't help that political action in this country is generally either a) a double edged sword, 2) rife with unintended consequences down the road, or c) both. This is also on top of the US being less a regular nation-state and more like the Holy Roman Empire in terms of politics and law (which practically everyone who is for reform forgets).
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness” — then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

MLK
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#85
@Ravan, MLK might have started for non-violence at first, but by the time he was assassinated he was becoming Malcom X. Massive immediate reform is like handing a loaded gun, and I do not trust the GOP to simply use it against me given their history. It should be also noted that massive immediate reform like this is always rife with unintended consequences (having many of the judges and the entire Senate being directly elected by the electorate is proof of this, just to reduce corruption of the Gilded Age) that show up years, if not decades down the line. I do not want enfranchising felons to end up the same way as making much of the justice system and the entire Senate being directly elected.

Unless you've got some time window that can tell me that, yes, this mass enfranchisement won't go the same path as direct elections to much of the justice system and the entire Senate, I can't go with it.
 

KeresAcheron

Well-known member
#86
Aaron Fox, because the unintended consequences of stopping felons from voting result in far worse perverse incentives than letting them vote. For example, deliberately targeting minority groups who are unlikely to vote for you to make them unable to vote/ Giving the government the ability to remove peoples right to vote is far more open to abuse than allowing former convicts to vote. There are very good Hobbesian reasons to not let a government strip it's citizens of the franchise, especially considering the current state of both the electoral and criminal justice systems in the USA.

Allowing people who are currently in prison to vote has the potential for abuse, as does selective re-franchisement. But you haven't actual explained why letting ex-felons vote is going to negatively effect the system. It hasn't in other countries and doing it in the USA would prevent the war on drugs from disenfranchising a large number of innocent people. Can you actual give an argument beyond vague possible negative consequences for why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote? Because other countries let them vote and they're doing fine.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#87
Aaron Fox, because the unintended consequences of stopping felons from voting result in far worse perverse incentives than letting them vote. For example, deliberately targeting minority groups who are unlikely to vote for you to make them unable to vote/ Giving the government the ability to remove peoples right to vote is far more open to abuse than allowing former convicts to vote. There are very good Hobbesian reasons to not let a government strip it's citizens of the franchise, especially considering the current state of both the electoral and criminal justice systems in the USA.

Allowing people who are currently in prison to vote has the potential for abuse, as does selective re-franchisement. But you haven't actual explained why letting ex-felons vote is going to negatively effect the system. It hasn't in other countries and doing it in the USA would prevent the war on drugs from disenfranchising a large number of innocent people. Can you actual give an argument beyond vague possible negative consequences for why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote? Because other countries let them vote and they're doing fine.
When you put it that way... I'm more open to that...

BIG FAT EDIT:

Sorry about the argument, my rearing got to me on that topic. It also doesn't help that meth is a horribad problem in Montana. Weed? That's easy peasy compared to our Meth problem.
 
Last edited:

TheHappyVampire

Well-known member
#88
Lawmakers to propose ranked-choice voting in upcoming session
The upcoming legislative session will see a push among some lawmakers to change the way Vermonters cast their ballots during elections.

Legislators in the House and Senate plan on introducing bills that would institute a ranked-choice voting system in Vermont.

Champions of ranked-choice voting argue the system leads to a more accurate reflection of public opinion in election results, by requiring winners to receive the majority of voter support or face a “run off”.
Vermont lawmakers are showing support for ranked-choice voting to be implemented in their state.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#89
Lawmakers to propose ranked-choice voting in upcoming session

Vermont lawmakers are showing support for ranked-choice voting to be implemented in their state.
That would hurt some of the entrenched while practically exterminating the GOP's chances of winning... I'm half-expecting that the GOP will try to kill it every way they can. However, that'll give more prominence to Third Party, well, parties in the US and US third parities are batshit insane since day one.
 

TheHappyVampire

Well-known member
#90
That would hurt some of the entrenched while practically exterminating the GOP's chances of winning... I'm half-expecting that the GOP will try to kill it every way they can. However, that'll give more prominence to Third Party, well, parties in the US and US third parities are batshit insane since day one.
The reason why third parties are filled with weirdos is probably that more aware folk simply see joining one of the two major political parties or being an independent as the smart choices. Ranked-choice voting could be quite beneficial for third parties by forcing them to make their platforms more appealing to a broader group of people and encourage saner individuals to join in.

From what I've seen on the GOP's recent actions toward ranked-choice voting, most will be quite against the voting method.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
#91
The reason why third parties are filled with weirdos is probably that more aware folk simply see joining one of the two major political parties or being an independent as the smart choices. Ranked-choice voting could be quite beneficial for third parties by forcing them to make their platforms more appealing to a broader group of people and encourage saner individuals to join in.

From what I've seen on the GOP's recent actions toward ranked-choice voting, most will be quite against the voting method.
Actually, historically in the US, the only 'sane' Third Party in US history (and this is saying something) was the Progressive Party (also known as the 'Bull Moose' Party, after the famous speech that gave the party it's nickname) which would have taken out the Republican Party if both the Dems and the GOP didn't swipe the platform.
 
#92
Legislature To Take Up Voting Reforms On Monday
State lawmakers are expected to take up on Monday a package of bills and a pair of constitutional amendments designed to make it easier to cast a vote in New York.

The bills will include measures for early voting, combining the state and federal primaries, a bill that would make voting easier for people who have moved and pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-old prospective voters, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said in an interview on WCNY’s The Capitol Pressroom.

An additional bill would close the loophole in state election law that allows donors to give an unlimited amount of money through a web of limited liability companies.
New York state lawmakers plan on introducing a number of bills on election reform. There is quite a lot of potential reforms on New York's electoral system. With the Democrats being the most open of such reforms and having trifecta control over New York's government, they probably plan on pushing for these reforms as fast as possible.

Looks like lawmakers in New York do not plan to hold back on electoral reform
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top