I'm-not-voting-for-either-candidate

[Tarragon]

To be honest, I have no idea. i really don't.
I was initially not happy with the Australian system of compulsory voting. After seeing the problems here, all I can say is that compulsory voting is way better than voluntary. Of course Australia also has the STV system and the US uses first past the post. That makes a difference too.

I never liked the term "first past the post" because it sounds like there's a time element, which there isn't.

There are multiple parties in a Australia's parliamentary system, right? In the US, the two party system might make compulsory voting look like a power-grab by the oligarchy to justify their future actions by forcing the appearance of a mandate. Combine compulsion of some groups of voters, with the suppression of others and it's a recipe for inciting civil disobedience. The luxury of apathy is what keeps this country from breaking out in civil strife. Take that away at the risk of everything.

I think there would need to be a lot of different parties that actually make it into Congress, for people to think compulsory voting results in more choice, instead of less choice and less liberty. Maybe such a law would inspire more parties and give them a chance, if people have to vote. But it would be difficult to overcome the status quo. And it won't prevent people from throwing away their vote, but instead of being mad at a few tens of thousands of people, people who gripe about the results will have to be mad at a several tens of millions of people.

[vendic]

Australia has multiple parties but they pretty much are a two party system.
What helps though is that the other parties can throw in allegiance with another to make them stronger thus winning the overall vote. It's not ideal, I don't think there is a system that is. I just think the STV combined with compulsory voting makes it fairer than the system here.

Changing your system to compulsory would likely have the effect you describe. It's not something that on it's own would help. I can just see far more black people in prison this time because they didn't vote.

[squ1d]

... can I ask how you think Australia's government compares to the US in terms of the "fairness" of elections? I mean, the Prime Minister isn't elected by popular vote, correct?

I already have in this thread but I'll repeat it again.
In a nutshell it uses a shitty system not based on a popular vote, and I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I don't vote even though it's compulsary to vote here.

[Thumper]

See, here in America we don't do that. We don't hold anyone to what they said or did at any time other than what they are saying or doing right now.

[vendic]

... can I ask how you think Australia's government compares to the US in terms of the "fairness" of elections? I mean, the Prime Minister isn't elected by popular vote, correct?

I already have in this thread but I'll repeat it again.
In a nutshell it uses a shitty system not based on a popular vote, and I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I don't vote even though it's compulsary to vote here.

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context.

Allow me,

I already have in this thread but I'll repeat it again.
In a nutshell it uses a shitty system not based on a popular vote, and I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I don't vote even though it's compulsary to vote here.

But in comparison I'd have to say its better on the grounds that it allows every citizen the right to vote.

See, here in America we don't do that. We don't hold anyone to what they said or did at any time other than what they are saying or doing right now.

I wish you would. I don't have problems being held to what I said at all. Quite often my views even change, just not on this it appears. I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad about that. Still, that is the right of an individual intelligent organism learning by experience.
As an example, we can go back to FWIS2 and find me supporting the death penalty back then. I was convinced by TSC not to. My position has now changed. I don't find changing my opinion based on new evidence or a compelling argument as something offensive. I do it regularly in fact. Some might find that hypocritical. I don't. Where I draw the line is politicians flip flopping based on voter appeal rather than their own position.
We can also check my 2A positions. They have changed. I used to support the 2A but now not so much. Mainly because I don't believe any idiot has the right to own a lethal weapon without any form of training or requirement to pass a proficiency test.

If we never change our position, they by default we are stuck with the earliest time we made a decision. So many people would be arguing or holding a position based on what they thought when they were 5 and daddy put them on his shoulders and said, "vote Democrat because they are honest". After that, they just know Democrats are honest.
I say that in jest but I have looked back at where I got my views and made sure I still held the same beliefs and did find some going back to my parents views. Again, I wish more people would look in and see why they hold a particular position with such fervor that any opposing view is almost taken as an insult.

Much of the problem here. "I vote Republican because my daddy voted the Pubs and his daddy before him and we're a proud bunch of ignorant fucks who don't realise that great great great grandpa supported the Republicans because they weren't as racist and the Democrats offended his black friend Leroy by wanting to put him in chains and insulted his friend Pablo".

[geonuc]

Just a small point - I actually think politicians should change their vote based on voter preferences. They represent us, theoretically.

[vendic]

So do I. It's flip flopping that bugs me. Changing position then back then forward is trying to appeal to everyone and just results in no one knowing your final position on it. It also allows them to claim they said they support this by simply disregarding the times they didn't.
But yeah, they should represent the people's views, what I'm referring to doesn't.

[pumpkinpi]

If/when Betsy DeVos gets confirmed as Secretary of Education, I'm going to campaign to get all the republicans who voted for her out of office. Their vote was CLEARLY what their party wanted, not what their constituents wanted.

[Tarragon]

Just a small point - I actually think politicians should change their vote based on voter preferences. They represent us, theoretically.

I'm not sure if Democracy by proxy is the same thing as a republic. Most Americans seem to want to be led, it's easier than participating. For congress, they think they are electing leaders instead of representatives. Although that belief fluctuates, depending on how they agree with the electeds or not.

[squ1d]

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context.

75% of my point was to troll you about not voting but having so many opinions about the process

[SciFiFisher]

Just a small point - I actually think politicians should change their vote based on voter preferences. They represent us, theoretically.

I'm not sure if Democracy by proxy is the same thing as a republic. Most Americans seem to want to be led, it's easier than participating. For congress, they think they are electing leaders instead of representatives. Although that belief fluctuates, depending on how they agree with the electeds or not.

It is sort of ambiguous. We want politicians who understand our values. And that will listen to want we want. i.e. in Eastern Washington State the voters worry a lot about things like land use, water rights, and being able to hand down the family farm to Johnny Jr. So, when they vote for a Republican Senator to represent them in Washington DC they want him to be a leader. Someone who is outspoken about standing up for rural communities, farmers, ranchers, and etc. They expect that person to be on the committees that influence what happens in their world. They expect him to read the bills he votes for and to vote based on what is best for them and the country. In other words they believe they are voting for someone who will look out for the country but will keep them in mind when he or she makes the day to day decisions about legislation, confirming cabinet picks, etc.

The better ones expect to be at least conversationally aware of what the heck is going on in Washington DC or the state capitol. But, they expect their politicians to know the finer details.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

[geonuc]

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

I agree with all but the above. They've only mostly disappeared.

Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Se. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand
Rep. John Lewis
Probably a bunch of Democratic Representatives that don't make the news much
Gov. Jerry Brown
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter
Former Vice-President Joe Biden

And ... Former Senator/Secretary Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton

To name a few.

[vendic]

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context.

75% of my point was to troll you about not voting but having so many opinions about the process

You did make me laugh.

Latest news in, lets make it even easier to do electoral fraud.

[vendic]

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

I agree with all but the above. They've only mostly disappeared.

Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Se. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand
Rep. John Lewis
Probably a bunch of Democratic Representatives that don't make the news much
Gov. Jerry Brown
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter
Former Vice-President Joe Biden

And ... Former Senator/Secretary Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton

To name a few.

Jimmy Carter seems to have some serious problems with the Clinton's. He was also spoke recently that the US system of government is an oligarchy. Not pointing out anything other than it seems to me that like minded people of the class described should have respect for each other since they are for the people and country first.
And...you know you put that out as bait. :p

[pumpkinpi]

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

I agree with all but the above. They've only mostly disappeared.

Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Se. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand
Rep. John Lewis
Probably a bunch of Democratic Representatives that don't make the news much
Gov. Jerry Brown
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter
Former Vice-President Joe Biden

And ... Former Senator/Secretary Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton

To name a few.

I'll add Minnesota's senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

[Thumper]

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

I agree with all but the above. They've only mostly disappeared.

Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Se. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand
Rep. John Lewis
Probably a bunch of Democratic Representatives that don't make the news much
Gov. Jerry Brown
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter
Former Vice-President Joe Biden

And ... Former Senator/Secretary Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton

To name a few.

I'll add Minnesota's senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

Then can I add Ohio's Sherrod Brown?

[Tarragon]

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way that type of politician has seemed to have disappeared.

I agree with all but the above. They've only mostly disappeared.

Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Se. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand
Rep. John Lewis
Probably a bunch of Democratic Representatives that don't make the news much
Gov. Jerry Brown
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter
Former Vice-President Joe Biden

And ... Former Senator/Secretary Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton

To name a few.

I thought we were talking about the US House of Representatives, since we were discussing elections at the federal level and representation of districts. Senators could be similar, or not, their traditions, term of office, and history of election (they weren't originally popularly elected but appointed by state legislatures), and the size and diversity of the state they represent put different pressures on them. Governors and Presidents, as executives, definitely don't fit the model of contradictory structural obligations we perceive with representatives. Certainly, some executives put on aires of feeling conflicted, but they're elected to represent the people in toto as the nominal head of state, as opposed to representing one subset of the population over another (though they often do just that, but that's a bug not a feature like it is with the HoR).

Besides, I'm sure there are people who have feelings to the contrary about those named above. They'll always have something to point to that proves they voted for something someone thinks was against the greater good. That's the first thing they teach you in college about politics: Justice done to one group is necessarily an injustice done to another group.