Let's talk about Republicans rejecting democracy with 67% & 63% of Repuds in new poll agreeing. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15184007
Fasces wrote:Democrats vote to increase voting access and remove barriers to voter participation. What are you talking about?


The amount of registered Democrats likely to consider swing voting has also steadily declined since 1992.

Fact is both of your political parties are becoming increasingly polarised.
#15184013
They are becoming more polarized, @colliric, but only one party(Republicans) are actively pursuing voter suppression. The Democrats are trying to increase voting access and remove barriers to voter participation.

They are NOT the same thing, and Republicans ARE rejecting democracy.
#15184019
Godstud wrote:They are becoming more polarized, @colliric, but only one party(Republicans) are actively pursuing voter suppression. The Democrats are trying to increase voting access and remove barriers to voter participation.

They are NOT the same thing, and Republicans ARE rejecting democracy.


We have compulsory voting in Australia. This is one reason why. You wouldn't have debates like this, nor would you have to waste money on "get out to vote", if you had compulsory voting.
#15184023
Not only are the Repuds suppressing the vote, they are also changing the law to let the state legislature throw out all the votes for President and instruct the state's Electors to vote a certain way. And, maybe someday don't have a vote for President at all (it is embarrassing to have to ignore it, just have the legislature decide.
#15184038
First, the Democratic Party differs significantly from the Republican Party. One need go no further than to look at the racial and ethnic, not to mention gender differences in the elite of both parties -- the members of the federal legislature.

The degree to which individual ethnic and racial groups are seen as specific entities -- identity politics in its neutral meaning -- is also different.

There is, furthermore, a current difference between the parties in the degree to which the ex-presidents of each party hold sway over its elected politicians.

I suspect, though I have not yet done a deep dive into the extant literature, that the percent of those Americans who identify as Republicans and who are amenable to an authoritarian head of the Administrative branch of the federal government differs from those who identify as Democrats. As to whether these people gravitated to the party or the Republican Party shifted to accommodate them is a topic for another thread.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15184051
colliric wrote:We have compulsory voting in Australia. This is one reason why. You wouldn't have debates like this, nor would you have to waste money on "get out to vote", if you had compulsory voting.




I am against compulsory voting. It would seem to me like implicit in the most fundamental of rights, is the right to make a choice. An Aussie ought to be able to decide for himself whether he wants to vote or not. And is it about compelling an Aussie to show up at a voting booth, or he is compelled to actually check the boxes? I ask that because the ballot here in California is usually a very long list of items: national, statewide, county, Sheriff, measures etc. I only vote on the few that I am informed about.

Furthermore, I see no difference between compulsory voting and what the left denounces as 'voter suppression'. Maximum turnout tends to favour the left, while low turnout tends to favour the right.
#15184052
@Juin

You are against compulsory voting because you know that means the U.S. would become a more freer and democratic society and whites represented by the republican party will have to share power with others and the whites represented by the republican party simply are not interested in sharing power or a having a genuine free and democratic society. That's why you and other republicans oppose compulsory voting. It's about taking and keeping all power to the whites of the republican party while disenfranchising and not sharing power with others. The republicans are not really interested in honest and free elections or the notion of freedom and democracy.
#15184054
Politics_Observer wrote:[usermention=80118]

@Juin[/usermention]

You are against compulsory voting because you know that means the U.S. would become a more freer and democratic society and whites represented by the republican party will have to share power with others and the whites represented by the republican party simply are not interested in sharing power or a having a genuine free and democratic society. That's why you and other republicans oppose compulsory voting. It's about taking and keeping all power to the whites of the republican party while disenfranchising and not sharing power with others. The republicans are not really interested in honest and free elections or the notion of freedom and democracy.



Southern culture "has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God."
https://web.archive.org/web/20120703052915/https://www.alternet.org/story/156071/conservative_southern_values_revived%3A_how_a_brutal_strain_of_american_aristocrats_have_come_to_rule_america

And now they control the Republican party...
#15184056
Juin wrote:I am against compulsory voting. It would seem to me like implicit in the most fundamental of rights, is the right to make a choice. An Aussie ought to be able to decide for himself whether he wants to vote or not. And is it about compelling an Aussie to show up at a voting booth, or he is compelled to actually check the boxes? I ask that because the ballot here in California is usually a very long list of items: national, statewide, county, Sheriff, measures etc. I only vote on the few that I am informed about.


I conditionally agree with compulsory voting. My conditions are:
1. NO pre-filtering of candidates or any means to undermine rights of candidacy (ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT)
2. Allow EITHER write-in candidates OR blank votes.


Juin wrote:Maximum turnout tends to favour the left, while low turnout tends to favour the right.


The opposite of this phenomenon holds in places threatened by far-left dictatorships, e.g. Hong Kong / Taiwan, which are threatened (or in Hong Kong's case, brutally oppressed) by China.
#15184057
Juin wrote:. And is it about compelling an Aussie to show up at a voting booth, or he is compelled to actually check the boxes?

It's about showing up. You can submit an informal vote by drawing a dick, or nasty/jokey message on the ballot. Or just put it straight in the bin.

Maximum turnout tends to favour the left, while low turnout tends to favour the right.

Nope, that's only in your country. Thanks to our preference voting system, prevalence of minority parties and indirect "vote for your local member" voting the centre-right Liberal Party frequently gets elected.

The Greens often split and cannibalize the Labor Party's vote in Australia, allowing the Liberal Party to win.
#15184060
@late

Fear, violence and brutality was a necessity to maintaining slavery and maintaining the institutions of white supremacy in the south and much of the U.S. But particularly the south that relied heavily on slavery for it's agriculture economy. There was then fear of a slave revolt and black empowerment just as there is fear of black empowerment here in the south today. But that is also much of the U.S. and not just exclusively the south.

You go to other parts of the U.S. and you will experience just as much racism in other parts as you do down here too. South started the Civil War to preserve it's institutions of slavery and white supremacy given that you were talking about billions upon billions of dollars that were valued at the time in regards to white ownership of black slaves. It was about money, as in the case of most wars, that the south attempted to secede from the Union.
#15184074
Politics_Observer wrote:
@late

Fear, violence and brutality was a necessity to maintaining slavery and maintaining the institutions of white supremacy in the south and much of the U.S. But particularly the south that relied heavily on slavery for it's agriculture economy. There was then fear of a slave revolt and black empowerment just as there is fear of black empowerment here in the south today. But that is also much of the U.S. and not just exclusively the south.

You go to other parts of the U.S. and you will experience just as much racism in other parts as you do down here too. South started the Civil War to preserve it's institutions of slavery and white supremacy given that you were talking about billions upon billions of dollars that were valued at the time in regards to white ownership of black slaves. It was about money, as in the case of most wars, that the south attempted to secede from the Union.



Southern values spread beyond the South, although as they were adopted, the local kooks often added their kookiness to the mix. Koch is basically a Bircher, for example.

I wish I could reproduce more of the article, since it gets into how you can see those values play out today with the lack of support of public education, the use of prisoners to do work everyone else uses machines for now.

That fear of Blacks is still there...
#15184092
[quote="colliric"][/quote]


Juin wrote:
. And is it about compelling an Aussie to show up at a voting booth, or he is compelled to actually check the boxes?


colliric << It's about showing up. You can submit an informal vote by drawing a dick, or nasty/jokey message on the ballot. Or just put it straight in the bin. <<


I thought so. It baffled me how one can justify compelling an individual to vote, if it is against their will, and how that even aligns with respect for individual rights.



Juin << Maximum turnout tends to favour the left, while low turnout tends to favour the right.<<


colliric << Nope, that's only in your country. Thanks to our preference voting system, prevalence of minority parties and indirect "vote for your local member" voting the centre-right Liberal Party frequently gets elected.

The Greens often split and cannibalize the Labor Party's vote in Australia, allowing the Liberal Party to win.<<



Correct. What I posited is much more prevalent in 'winner take all' systems
#15184095
@Juin

Individual rights are just one aspect to life as a human being. There are also rights for the society to live in safety, security,the rule of law and freedom. The rule of law is part of freedom. Society exists. NOT just ONLY individual rights. We have a society too that we have to take into account and not just ONLY individual rights. Individual rights have to be balanced against the needs of society to best ensure a free society. Compulsory voting helps to serve that purpose and serves it quite well in Australia. They don't have problems with politicians like Trump trying to establish a dictatorship like we do here in the U.S. They actually a free society over there and don't have to worry about people like Trump trying to destroy their government and become a dictator. Not saying life is perfect over there, but at least they are not the verge of becoming a right wing racist fascist dictatorship.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 05 Aug 2021 20:33, edited 1 time in total.
Is the US economy overheating

It certainly doesn't seem like it is yet. Data is[…]

Breaking down? Oh please, how many times have we […]

Universal Basic Income is a scam.

Feel free to show that I am wrong by providing ev[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

You can do it Trump supporters. I believe in you.[…]