2016 Elections

[Thumpalumpacus]

It will certainly take time to effect a change,

We don't have time.  The republicunts and their libertard leash holders are threatening to destroy the country NOW.

And doing nothing will forestall that how?

Risk killing the hostage is not justifiable if the hostage is the world you live.

Expecting this group of politicians we have in power to do the right thing is not justifiable. But of course, they won't kill the hostage. It was an analogy and not perfectly translatable, and that's why this point of yours doesn't really have much oomph.

---

I would rather endure a shitty Presidency or Congress for a few years knowing that the groundswell is building, than endure a shitty Presidency or Congress with no hope for change because everyone insists on voting for parties which have a track record of corrupt self-interest taking precedence over good governance.

Nothing can guarantee change in our system. But doing nothing guarantees the stranglehold of the status quo.

Why would a third party be above all the corruption you complain about above? 

I don't think they would be.  But I do think that having more parties which represent a wider political spectrum would be healthier. I also think that turnover in power-brokers is a healthy thing for the body politic.
Of course no party -- composed as they are of people -- would be immune to corruption. But having more legitimate options to choose from would be more likely to get the voter more responsive party behavior, and, hopefully, better governance.

[henryp]

Elizabeth Drew in New York Review of Books notes that Republicans are using voting restrictions (valid photo ID, etc.) to pare the opposition's margins, as Demo voters among minority groups and the elderly are more likely to be excluded by the provisions. The number of voters affected, while relatively small, can nonetheless turn close elections and may have done so in North Carolina's 2014 Senate race.

This is in addition to the usual gerrymandering. Utah carved its sole Democratic enclave in Salt Lake City into three pieces so that every Democrat now votes in a House district that is overwhelmingly of the Cowboy Caucus. Reapportionment got rid of the pesky former District 2 that occasionally went blue, ensuring a solid red Congressional delegation for eternity to come.

For the democrats, the perfect world scenario, would be their campaign workers being able to vote on behalf of uninterested constituents.  The reality is the "Valid photo ID" is primarily keeping away people who don't really give a shit.  But the democrats need the people in their base who don't really give a shit to vote.  In fact, that's the key to winning for them.  Voter ID laws shouldn't keep anyone interested in voting away.   In North Carolina, you basically have 2 years notice to go to the DMV and get a free ID.  If you can't climb over a bar set that low, maybe voting isn't for you?

Even worse, 'turnout' entrenches the two party system even more.  The more people who don't know what's going on, but will vote if you have the money to tell them who to vote for, and give them a ride to the polls, the more it is about money and organization.  The people who are paying attention are a minority.  The people who are intelligently paying attention, an even bigger minority.  To the point, that it's basically now a waste of time to spend money trying to convince truly independent people, when you could be spending that time registering some more morons.

[Hatshepsut]

Why would a third party be above all the corruption you complain about above? 

I don't think they would be.  But I do think that having more parties which represent a wider political spectrum would be healthier. I also think that turnover in power-brokers is a healthy thing for the body politic.

In general I agree, though I belong to the school of thought that declares corruption follows power as quickly as flies home in on shit. A big difference between the U.S. and Europe is our "winner take all" electoral system that disfavors small parties. A small party can conceivably win 30% of the vote and not get a single seat out of it, which can't happen when you elect from lists the way parliamentary systems do.

Turnover is harder to evaluate. We correctly limit presidents to 8 years, though I'm not sure Congressional term limits would produce the desired power sharing: It might just result in lots of bumbling, inexperienced lawmakers becoming prey to the lobbyists who actually write much of the legislation. (The conservative ALEC does so for statehouses.) Also, many power brokers are unelected bureaucrats who serve for life.

The reality is the "Valid photo ID" is primarily keeping away people who don't really give a shit.  ...  Voter ID laws shouldn't keep anyone interested in voting away.   In North Carolina, you basically have 2 years notice to go to the DMV and get a free ID.

Agreed we must have the laziest electorate in the world. But after 9/11, loss or expiry of a photo ID can be a much bigger headache than it ever was, especially if other documents like birth certificates and Soc. Security cards are also lost or stolen. You need photo ID to enter a federal building to go replace a missing Soc. Sec. card, for instance. The guards at the door make no exceptions and won't let you in without the state-issue ID. But what if you lost both your ID and your Soc. Sec. card in a mugging? And without a Soc. Sec. card you can't replace your photo ID. Similarly, some states no longer issue birth certificates by mail; you must travel to that state and get it in person with photo ID and Soc. Sec. card in hand. No exceptions. In today's national security state you really need to keep these documents in a safe-deposit box as they may be impossible to replace if you lose them.