MB's Own November Midterm Election

**Frownland** · 11-02-2018, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric generic

Frownland, for someone who generally seems very informed and astute, your opinions on politics are complete garbage.

Both sides are not the same at all. Maybe you could read this.

If you mean the actual conservative/liberal dichotomy, then yes the two sides are quite different. If you mean the politicians in the two main American parties then no, they are on the same level of moral bankruptcy.

I'm voting in my local elections and props. However, I haven't found a congressperson who isn't scum so I'll pass on that particular oligarchical farce, thanks.

Mondo Bungle · 11-02-2018, 07:31 PM

I pretty much don't even know what we're voting for in the first place

Lisnaholic · 11-02-2018, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rostasi

Lisna, how many bubbles in a bar of soap?

^ HaHa! Those questions were terrible, though I thought the question, "How far is up?" was even less fair; tricky enough to answer if you're sitting around with a bunch of friends, but to have them fired at you out of the blue in an official context is disgraceful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric generic

Both sides are not the same at all. Maybe you could read this.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...anning-to-vote

^ Thanks! That article is a really powerful argument in favour of voting. If I may, I'll quote just one bit which might strike a chord with some members here:-

Quote:

Do you support lower college tuition loan rates, "free college for all,” net neutrality, gay rights or legalization of recreational marijuana?

All of these bills have overwhelming Democratic sponsorship and virtually no Republican sponsorship. The only way for these bills to become law is to vote for Democrats.

EDIT: @ Mondo Bungle: one place to start would be to read eric generic's article. Another might be to look at the OP where I put some beginner's guide info.

**Frownland** · 11-02-2018, 07:54 PM

And the GOP supports freedom. How can you hate freedom and even more liberty?

Sales pamphlets are worthless.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 11-02-2018, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Just look at voting records

whether the politicians are all scum is whatever, pick the guy/gal who votes closest to your political alignment (and can reasonably win)

So if the person you agree with doesn't have a reasonable shot at victory, you shouldn't vote for them? It's that time of thinking that perpetuates the sh*tty system that we have.

I've heard that Democratic PAC's [political action committees] have been giving money to Libertarians, in an effort to siphon votes away from Republicans and allow Democrats to win.

Smart on the part of the Democrats.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 11-02-2018, 09:45 PM

Why don't all election with more than 2 candidates implement INSTANT RUNOFF / RANKED voting?

Instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank all candidates on the card in order of your preference for them. The lowest rated candidate is eliminated, then people vote again on the remaining candidates. This is done until there is a winner.

This would be an ideal method of voting, but logistically, I can see problems. People would make their initial vote, then we would have to count all of the ballots, then ask people to come back and vote again, and again, until a winner was declared. This would cost time and money that people just aren't willing to allot to an election, unfortunately.

Any thoughts on what would constitute a "perfect" voting system?

~~[MERIT]~~ · 11-02-2018, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

pretty much you shouldn't bother yes

By this edict, only Democrats and Republicans deserve votes, regardless of how sh*tty they are. Do you see the problem with this? You're perpetuating that "lesser of two evils" bullsh*t.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 11-02-2018, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Vote in the primary?

I'm not saying you get a lot of choice

however you might as well not vote at all if you're going to vote 3rd party tbh, especially since at best you'll actually end up with the farthest candidate from your beliefs

That type of thinking is toxic to any form of democracy! I always vote for some obscure party in the primary, just to ensure that they make it on the ballot. The last time, it was the Constitution Party, and I was the first person all day to do so, according to the guy at the polls.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 11-03-2018, 02:30 AM

VIA: https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/01/n...ook-ad-hunters

Quote:

The North Dakota arm of the Democratic Party is running ads on Facebook discouraging hunters from turning out to vote in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“ATTENTION HUNTERS: If you vote in North Dakota, you may forfeit hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota,” read the pair of ads.

The state party is running the ads under a Facebook page titled “Hunter Alerts,” Facebook’s ad archive shows. The “Hunter Alerts” page was created Wednesday, a day before the ads appeared on Facebook.

North Dakota political blogger Rob Port first noted the ads, and said he had never heard of hunters ever losing their licenses after voting in North Dakota. A spokesman for North Dakota Gaming and Fish told Port the same: “We’ve never heard of that.”

The ads come as North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp trails Republican challenger Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota U.S. representative, in her bid for re-election.

Heitkamp, whose campaign has made several gaffes in the final stretches of the race, transferred $2.7 million from her campaign to the state party last week.

North Dakota GOP communications director Jake Wilkins slammed Heitkamp for her party’s efforts to discourage hunters from voting. (RELATED: Republicans Feeling Confident About Taking Heidi Heitkamp’s Seat)

“Heidi Heitkamp is using her anti-Kavanaugh campaign coffers to suppress voter turnout in North Dakota,” Wilkins told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “On the day she’s starting her de-facto farewell tour, Heitkamp is making it clear to voters that she only cares about winning re-election, not helping her constituents.”

Neither the state party nor the Heitkamp campaign returned requests for comment on the ads.

The Batlord · 11-03-2018, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

That type of thinking is toxic to any form of democracy! I always vote for some obscure party in the primary, just to ensure that they make it on the ballot. The last time, it was the Constitution Party, and I was the first person all day to do so, according to the guy at the polls.

Elph paints himself as a revolutionary but he's really a pragmatist who will compromise because he can't stand losing.

View Poll Results: How will/would you vote on Nov 6?
Generic Democratic Candidate	8	47.06%
Generic Republican Candidate	2	11.76%
Other Candidate	2	11.76%
I don't vote in midterms	5	29.41%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

11-02-2018, 07:54 PM	#94 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	And the GOP supports freedom. How can you hate freedom and even more liberty? Sales pamphlets are worthless. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-02-2018, 09:45 PM	#96 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	Why don't all election with more than 2 candidates implement INSTANT RUNOFF / RANKED voting? Instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank all candidates on the card in order of your preference for them. The lowest rated candidate is eliminated, then people vote again on the remaining candidates. This is done until there is a winner. This would be an ideal method of voting, but logistically, I can see problems. People would make their initial vote, then we would have to count all of the ballots, then ask people to come back and vote again, and again, until a winner was declared. This would cost time and money that people just aren't willing to allot to an election, unfortunately. Any thoughts on what would constitute a "perfect" voting system?