Trump Scoffs at Expanded Voter Regulations

[Albion]

Then your reading comprehension appears to be very suspect.

Oh, oh. That's out of line.

 

[stevil]

Criticizing, and Accusing doesn't make it so.

The only reason that is done by The Democrat Party is to make themselves look good.

Or because they are actually seeing the Republicans suppress voters.

Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia
Trump top adviser: 'Traditionally, it's always been Republicans suppressing votes'
Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities, Journalist Says
The Facts About Voter Suppression


It seems that there is a whole heap of evidence showing that the Republican party engages in aggressive voter suppression and the minimising of minority voting benefits the Republican party.

There is very little evidence that any significant levels of voter fraud occur.

 

[Albion]

Or because they are actually seeing the Republicans suppress voters..

You're really scrambling for some new line of attack now.

 

[46AND2]

If you insist upon repeating yourself but without showing any comprehension of the explanation you have been given, I guess there's nothing to add at this point.

*sigh*

In a region where Republicans are the dominant party, does the current system APPOINT a Democratic candidate? Let's take an extreme: let's say State A, by popular vote, would vote:

Republican A: 42%
Republican B: 30%
Republican C: 25%
Democrat A,B,C: 1% each.

In the standard system, the GE ballot would contain:

Republican A and whichever Democrat was slightly higher.

How is that representing the vote of the people? How is this not APPOINTING a particular candidate? Further, what purpose would there be appointing a candidate who will go on to get destroyed?

 

[Albion]

How is that representing the vote of the people?

The example is very extreme, but in any case, that primary has done its job and narrowed the field of each legal party down to its chosen candidate. There is no "appointing" going on.

Further, what purpose would there be appointing a candidate who will go on to get destroyed?

Wow. I really didn't expect such antipathy to democracy when this discussion started. Why, may I ask, does your scenario even bother with a General Election?

 

[46AND2]

The example is very extreme, but in any case, that primary has done its job and narrowed the field of each legal party down to its chosen candidate. There is no "appointing" going on.

Of course it appoints a particular candidate. It guarantees a representative of each party, regardless of popular vote.

Wow. I really didn't expect such antipathy to democracy when this discussion started.

YOU were the one who complained, erroneously, about "appointed" candidates. I am merely showing you how guaranteed party representation IS an appointment of candidacy. The top-two seems to be just as, and in some scenarios more, democratic. You could have 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, OR one of each, depending on the vote of the people.

Why, may I ask, does your scenario even bother with a General Election?

Er, to ensure the best candidate as voted by the people?

 

[46AND2]

Current system: Top two will have representatives of each party
Top-two system: Top two will be voted in by the people

Seems pretty cut and dried to me which one has the "appointed" representative.

 

[46AND2]

Why, may I ask, does your scenario even bother with a General Election?

FWIW, I would think it far more likely for Candidate B to overtake Candidate A if both are from the same party. For example:

Let's say:

Dem A gets 42%
Dem B gets 41%
Republican A get the remaining 17%

Let's say Dem B is a little more right leaning than Dem A-which contributes to his 2nd place finish, anyway. When it comes to the GE vote, he should get more of the votes from those who voted R in the primary.

Same situation, but using the traditional system:

Dem A is eliminated
Dem B wins primary
Rep A wins primary

Dem B is going to get most of the votes from Dem A constituents in the final, AND has to fade a much bigger percentage gap, anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For one thing, a primary is not a non-partisan run-off, although you seem to think it is.

The various political parties which have qualified for the ballot through a certain level of demonstrated support from the electorate, place candidates on the ballot so that voters can choose the party's nominee for the General Election. All such parties do this in the primaries.

With this change, however, they often no longer are doing that.

In areas where one party dominates, that party alone goes into the General Election and is guaranteed victory, just as in any ordinary dictatorship.

The voters in November have a contest only on personalities. The differences between the parties, their philosophy of government, the competing platforms, etc....pfffft. Nothing. It's a radical change, no matter how much you try to make it seem almost a trivial streamlining of our system of free elections.

In a way, it's like the "White Primaries" that used to be legal in the South.

This is an incredibly flawed analogy. Along with the top two primary system is the ability to vote across party lines. It is more inclusive since it allows those that do not identify with either party to voice their choice. And it does not stop the election of a third person. This is an incorrect assumption on your part. A write in vote is still possible. There is no guarantee of election.

 

[stevil]

Shall we conclude that a one-party General Election for your representative in Parliament would be quite acceptable to you, even if that sole party is not the one you usually had been voting for?

In my country we have many parties. They all appear on the ballot.
We vote for a local representative and we vote for an overall governing party. Yes we make two votes each.
Once all the votes are tallied up we then have seats in parliament allocated based on percentage of the overall vote. (there are some threshold limits), but over all we tend to get a government that represents the proportions of the overall votes.
One party might have the most votes, say 47%, but they then need to collaborate with another party (or several parties) in order to form a ruling government.

In my country we vote for a party, not a single person (not a president or a prime minister) except we do vote for an individual when it comes to local representation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, oh. That's out of line.

Then don't make false claims about others. You keep saying "it looks like you said this" (paraphrase) when what was said in no logical way could mean that. Don't try to reinterpret what others say.

 

[cow451]

Then let just purge the books in California and see what happens.

California does not want to do it.......why?

Psst ...... Ineligible voters would not be on the books.

 

[cow451]

Is that a yes or no? to my question?

Oh I don't vote.

That explains your level of knowledge about it.

 

[JIMINZ]

Psst ...... Ineligible voters would not be on the books.

 

[JIMINZ]

That explains your level of knowledge about it.

No, it explains yours.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's a serious implication. They can't win if everyone that's eligible is allowed to vote freely? Where are the Republicans trying to prevent an eligible person from voting?

They tried several times in my state. Luckily the courts continue to shut them down.

 

[KCfromNC]

So we're getting somewhere with this after all.

And WHY do you suppose they would do better if just any voter can pick up an absentee ballot and find someone who is homebound and fill out that ballot for him?

Wait, I thought the implication was that this would help democratic candidates, but the most recent time this happened in my state it was the GOP who tried (and failed) to commit this type of election fraud.

 

[cow451]

No, it explains yours.

I am quite knowledgeable as you admit.

 

[JIMINZ]

I am quite knowledgeable as you admit.

I cannot admit something that I have not seen any evidence of.
Your belief then is a mis-assumption on your part.

 

[cow451]

I cannot admit something that I have not seen any evidence of.
Your belief then is a mis-assumption on your part.

Goodnight Mr. Poe.