Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#71

Post by mikeash »

Houshalter wrote: post #68
mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Clinton wins, it won't be because her email stuff is dismissed as a conspiracy, it will be because we only have two choices and the other one is vastly worse. (Don't try to tell me about other choices. Third party candidates are the frictionless pulleys of American politics.)

Unless you live in a swing state you can totally vote third party without cost. Even if you do, it's unlikely your vote will be the tiebreaker. Don't feel compelled to vote for someone you don't believe in. It's not like your vote matters!

That's fine until a bunch of people all have the same idea, then you might end up with 2000 again. I voted on that principle that year, and never again.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#72

Post by nitwit005 »

Grishnakh wrote: post #35
themartorana wrote: post #7

Gerrymandering has outrageous results [0] and voter suppression of minorities is right out of a novel [1]. It's so screwed up that votes almost don't matter, depending on who last classified what voting district you're in. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-... [1] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/02/3745296/major-vo...

Gerrymandering is completely overblown as a problem. Proof: the 2016 Presidential primaries.

The congressional districts are what get gerrymandered. They're completely irrelevant to the Democrats or Republicans picking their presidential candidates.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#73

Post by evan_ »

Houshalter wrote: post #70
evan_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a vacuum I would agree with you that simply manufacturing guns does not in itself lead to gun violence. The person buying the gun is ultimately responsible for its use. However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with…

You can't sue someone for speaking or advertising ideas you don't agree with. The NRA could start printing copies of Mein Kampf and cause the rise of a new Nazi movement, and I'd still defend their right to free speech. I also don't agree with your assumption that conservatives and readers of gun magazines are responsible for most of the homicide rate. If you banned gun magazines and blogs or whatever you think is re…

I'm not saying this is the cause of gun-related death but there are some cases where it may be a factor, and those are the cases where it might be reasonable to pursue a lawsuit.

I don't know why you think I'm trying to surpress free speech. It's widely agreed that free speech is not freedom from consequence of that speech.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#74

Post by Brandanna »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #46
douche wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.

Misogyny has no place here.

I, for one, am glad that the person in charge of secret prisons and rendition flights, as well as torture, drone killings, the panopticon of surveillance, and the further erosion of our civil rights will finally have a vagina this time.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#75

Post by Houshalter »

evan_ wrote: post #73
Houshalter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't sue someone for speaking or advertising ideas you don't agree with. The NRA could start printing copies of Mein Kampf and cause the rise of a new Nazi movement, and I'd still defend their right to free speech. I also don't agree with your assumption that conservatives and readers of gun magazines are responsible for most of the homicide rate. If you banned gun magazines and blogs or whatever you think is re…

I'm not saying this is the cause of gun-related death but there are some cases where it may be a factor, and those are the cases where it might be reasonable to pursue a lawsuit. I don't know why you think I'm trying to surpress free speech. It's widely agreed that free speech is not freedom from consequence of that speech.

Yes it is. Otherwise you could sue almost anyone for anything. Sue the car manufacturers which encourage people to buy automobiles which kill far more than guns.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#76

Post by Houshalter »

mikeash wrote: post #71
Houshalter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you live in a swing state you can totally vote third party without cost. Even if you do, it's unlikely your vote will be the tiebreaker. Don't feel compelled to vote for someone you don't believe in. It's not like your vote matters!

That's fine until a bunch of people all have the same idea, then you might end up with 2000 again. I voted on that principle that year, and never again.

You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't feel compelled to vote for him. The president should be the candidate the most people really believe is best. Not someone who wins through tactical voting and crushing better third parties.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#77

Post by aylons »

bpodgursky wrote: post #66
aylons wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a government rank, it is an elections ranking. From your comment history, I can see you have an axe to grind in Brazilian politics. Please keep it to relevant discussions.

It's from the first sentence of the article. Brazil is fair game.

"They all outranked the United States in a comparison of election standards and procedures conducted by the Electoral Integrity Project"

The sentence is specific about election process, not all the government. If you want to discredit the research, do it properly.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#78

Post by mikeash »

Houshalter wrote: post #76
mikeash wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine until a bunch of people all have the same idea, then you might end up with 2000 again. I voted on that principle that year, and never again.

You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't feel compelled to vote for him. The president should be the candidate the most people really believe is best. Not someone who wins through tactical voting and crushing better third parties.

A lot of states in 2000 had more votes for third parties than the gap between the two major candidates. I happened to vote in one, although it went for Gore anyway.

A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country.

I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke.

But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless.

The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#79

Post by LionessLover »

lettergram wrote: post #16
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.

His economic plan would require all the wealth produced by the top 100 U.S. companies. He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Oh and if you look at his past votes they're almost all opposite of his campaign. Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left. I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.

Of course, in "capitalism" that doesn't happen - instead banks and other "too large to fail" companies are just given money, or they are sort-of nationalized - but without actually doing so (GM, Chrysler for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_...).

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#80

Post by LionessLover »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #28
LionessLover wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be more believable if you had practiced what you preach and picked one of your favorite politicians to criticize, not one from the other side. Seem hypocritical.

I just criticized Clinton, Trump, Sanders, and Paxton, people across the political spectrum. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've taken a criticism of our political system as a whole and turned it into targeting your person. How?

> into targeting your person

Eh, what???

Post reply on HN