Lean Question For Those Over 40

[PIPEWRENCH]

California... We have dozens to choose from.

I am in PA and the state is split pretty evenly between the 2 parties. Pittsburg and Philly are democrat. If you are a republican your vote doesn't count. The rest of the state is split between the 2 parties with the republicans having a slight majority. I try and vote for who I think will do the best job. But as my aunt came to realize and I am also that both parties are bought and paid for so no matter who I vote for I lose.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I am still registered as a Republican, but the last Republican candidate for President that I voted for was Bush41 in 1992. Since 1992 I've voted Conservative Party, Veterans Party, Libertarian Party, and in 2016 I voted for the Constitution Party candidate.

I do vote for some Republicans locally, but it depends on the candidate. For example, I have absolutely no problem voting for Republican Don Young's 24th term as House Representative. The Republican candidates the GOP has been nominating for President since 1992 have not been even remotely conservative. Bush and Trump are both RINOs, and so was Romney. McCain was probably the biggest RINO of them all.

If the GOP ever get around to nominating a conservative, then I may vote Republican again, but not until then.

One thing is absolutely certain, I could never vote for any anti-American Democrat. The Democratic Party is the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.

I really thought they were for the people up until B. Clinton. When he pushed NAFTA through after the democrats stopped Bush from passing it I knew the democrats were no longer for the people. As I looked into who funded both parties I was surprised both parties are funded by the same rich and powerful. Plus If white collar supports the republicans the unions support the democrats. So now they have us divided. But when say GE wants some regulation passed guess what. The unions have the democrats and management has the republicans. What ever they want they get. Like NAFTA. So they have divided and conquered us while we keep thinking it is the other party that is the bad party. Plus no matter who I vote for it is a candidate funded by the rich and powerful. The very thing I laughed at the Russians for when I was in school. The people are voting for 2 candidates of the communist party. I never thought I would be laughing at myself.

 

[concernedpuma]

I really thought they were for the people up until B. Clinton. When he pushed NAFTA through after the democrats stopped Bush from passing it I knew the democrats were no longer for the people. As I looked into who funded both parties I was surprised both parties are funded by the same rich and powerful. Plus If white collar supports the republicans the unions support the democrats. So now they have us divided. But when say GE wants some regulation passed guess what. The unions have the democrats and management has the republicans. What ever they want they get. Like NAFTA. So they have divided and conquered us while we keep thinking it is the other party that is the bad party. Plus no matter who I vote for it is a candidate funded by the rich and powerful. The very thing I laughed at the Russians for when I was in school. The people are voting for 2 candidates of the communist party. I never thought I would be laughing at myself.

It is discouraging. I wonder what the Constitution would have to say, if the none of the above option were offered on the ballot, and then won!
Regards,
CP

 

[Glitch]

I really thought they were for the people up until B. Clinton. When he pushed NAFTA through after the democrats stopped Bush from passing it I knew the democrats were no longer for the people. As I looked into who funded both parties I was surprised both parties are funded by the same rich and powerful. Plus If white collar supports the republicans the unions support the democrats. So now they have us divided. But when say GE wants some regulation passed guess what. The unions have the democrats and management has the republicans. What ever they want they get. Like NAFTA. So they have divided and conquered us while we keep thinking it is the other party that is the bad party. Plus no matter who I vote for it is a candidate funded by the rich and powerful. The very thing I laughed at the Russians for when I was in school. The people are voting for 2 candidates of the communist party. I never thought I would be laughing at myself.

I got my first impression of the Democratic Party at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I had no idea what it meant to be right-wing or left-wing then, but it was that experience in '68 that caused me to vote for Nixon in '72. I voted for Ford in '76 only because I had registered as a Republican to vote for Nixon in '72. I didn't really become "politically aware" until Carter was President. I was serving my second term in the Marine Corps at the time Carter became President, and the very first thing he did upon becoming President was to pardon all the Vietnam deserters. Which completely destroyed military morale. That, and the way I was treated by Democrats in California while I was serving in the military, only reinforced my utter disdain for the anti-American left.

This was also the time when the Republican Party was at its best. Opposing the Democrat's unconstitutional "War on Poverty", "Great Society," and the nationalization of education. As someone who had sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution, the more I learned about the GOP the more I began to like them. Unfortunately, it wouldn't last.

NAFTA was actually a Republican crafted trade agreement that began its life in 1986, while Reagan was President. NAFTA was completed in 1991, but Bush41 didn't think he could get a Democrat-controlled Senate to pass it. It would not be until after the 1994 mid-term election, and the Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years before NAFTA would be sent to the Senate.

You can certainly blame Clinton for NAFTA if you want, because he did send it to a Republican-controlled Senate for their approval. However, NAFTA was drafted by, and approved by, Republicans. So the blame should be shared.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I got my first impression of the Democratic Party at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I had no idea what it meant to be right-wing or left-wing then, but it was that experience in '68 that caused me to vote for Nixon in '72. I voted for Ford in '76 only because I had registered as a Republican to vote for Nixon in '72. I didn't really become "politically aware" until Carter was President. I was serving my second term in the Marine Corps at the time Carter became President, and the very first thing he did upon becoming President was to pardon all the Vietnam deserters. Which completely destroyed military morale. That, and the way I was treated by Democrats in California while I was serving in the military, only reinforced my utter disdain for the anti-American left.

This was also the time when the Republican Party was at its best. Opposing the Democrat's unconstitutional "War on Poverty", "Great Society," and the nationalization of education. As someone who had sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution, the more I learned about the GOP the more I began to like them. Unfortunately, it wouldn't last.

NAFTA was actually a Republican crafted trade agreement that began its life in 1986, while Reagan was President. NAFTA was completed in 1991, but Bush41 didn't think he could get a Democrat-controlled Senate to pass it. It would not be until after the 1994 mid-term election, and the Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years before NAFTA would be sent to the Senate.

You can certainly blame Clinton for NAFTA if you want, because he did send it to a Republican-controlled Senate for their approval. However, NAFTA was drafted by, and approved by, Republicans. So the blame should be shared.

I thought for sure when Clinton got elected NAFTA was dead. The democrats had fought it for years and a veto from Clinton would have ended it permanently. NAFTA passing showed me that the rich and powerful do indeed own both parties.

 

[Glitch]

I thought for sure when Clinton got elected NAFTA was dead. The democrats had fought it for years and a veto from Clinton would have ended it permanently. NAFTA passing showed me that the rich and powerful do indeed own both parties.

Clinton was a political animal. He would gladly take the credit for anything the public deemed a good idea, whether it was his idea or not. Clinton vetoed the Welfare Reform Act the first two times, but after it passed with a veto-proof majority the third time he had absolutely no problem accepting all the credit for the major welfare reform. I don't think Clinton had any real political convictions of his own. He just took credit for whatever was popular at the time. It didn't matter if they were Democrat or Republican ideas, as long as he could take the credit.

Clinton just wanted to have a treaty as part of his legacy, and when he was assured that NAFTA would pass, I don't think he could resist.

 

[Rosie1]

I'm a life long democrat, from a family of Roosevelt democrats. I usually vote democratic, but have occasionally voted for republicans in very local areas. I remember when we were worried about policy changes under Reagan, later feared Busch II corruption and Karl Rove. They were nothing compared to the current WH resident. I'm very concerned that the office of presidency is being tarnished forever.

 

[Cassandra]

It is discouraging. I wonder what the Constitution would have to say, if the none of the above option were offered on the ballot, and then won!
Regards,
CP

Then you might want to work toward enacting 'Rank Choice Voting' which feels like a no brainer to me. It is the best way to empower third parties. Nonetheless , the initiative failed in my current state (Oregon) but succeeded in my former state-( Maine) at least at the state level.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Then you might want to work toward enacting 'Rank Choice Voting' which feels like a no brainer to me. It is the best way to empower third parties. Nonetheless , the initiative failed in my current state (Oregon) but succeeded in my former state-( Maine) at least at the state level.

I would support this system 100%. I agree it is the best way to give 3rd party candidates a fighting chance. That's also why the current two parties will never support it, and why it will never become law.

 

[Cassandra]

I would support this system 100%. I agree it is the best way to give 3rd party candidates a fighting chance. That's also why the current two parties will never support it, and why it will never become law.

Well, actually Dems and some Repubs worked hard for this initiative in Maine and are now working hard to have a ballot measure that would extend R.C.V. to Federal level elections. I agree that in states where one party has a lock on power, its going to be more difficult to pass.

I think the measure failed in Oregon because few people understood it. It was called "star voting" (quite complicated) and lots of people did not vote yeh or neh because they simply did not understand it.

 

[Glitch]

Well, actually Dems and some Repubs worked hard for this initiative in Maine and are now working hard to have a ballot measure that would extend R.C.V. to Federal level elections. I agree that in states where one party has a lock on power, its going to be more difficult to pass.

I think the measure failed in Oregon because few people understood it. It was called "star voting" (quite complicated) and lots of people did not vote yeh or neh because they simply did not understand it.

RCV would never pass in Alaska. Too many problems with election fraud, and there is no audit trail. In order for RCV to pass one must believe their State government is without flaw and 100% honest. An incredibly naive position for anyone to take. It may also violate the First Amendment by restricting our freedom of association. You can't just ban political parties after all.

 

[Cassandra]

RCV would never pass in Alaska. Too many problems with election fraud, and there is no audit trail. In order for RCV to pass one must believe their State government is without flaw and 100% honest. An incredibly naive position for anyone to take. It may also violate the First Amendment by restricting our freedom of association. You can't just ban political parties after all.

How do you arrive at " banning parties" with regard to R.C.V.? Sounds like Alaska has some house cleaning to do.

 

[Glitch]

How do you arrive at " banning parties" with regard to R.C.V.? Sounds like Alaska has some house cleaning to do.

If there is only two candidates, and I chose candidate A RCV would require me to pick additional canididates. Candidates I don't want, or candidates from other parties. If I had three picks, what would happen if I chose candidate A all three times? Isn't that the same as voting for a candidate three separate times in the same election? Or if I am prohibited from voting for a candidate more than once, but still have to vote for additional candidates, then it is no longer my choice. Government would be forcing me to vote for candidates I don't want.

No matter how you slice it, RCV is a very bad idea. Thankfully it isn't even a consideration in Alaska.

 

[Cassandra]

If there is only two candidates, and I chose candidate A RCV would require me to pick additional canididates. Candidates I don't want, or candidates from other parties. If I had three picks, what would happen if I chose candidate A all three times? Isn't that the same as voting for a candidate three separate times in the same election? Or if I am prohibited from voting for a candidate more than once, but still have to vote for additional candidates, then it is no longer my choice. Government would be forcing me to vote for candidates I don't want.

No matter how you slice it, RCV is a very bad idea. Thankfully it isn't even a consideration in Alaska.

There are different ways to design RCV (as seen in the Star version) I don't recognize the problem you state. Judging from the hostility on this forum for both Dem and Repub parties, I would think everyone would welcome a way to neutralize the problem of the spoiler affect that occurs whenever third parties enter political races.

 

[Skink]

If there is only two candidates, and I chose candidate A RCV would require me to pick additional canididates. Candidates I don't want, or candidates from other parties. If I had three picks, what would happen if I chose candidate A all three times? Isn't that the same as voting for a candidate three separate times in the same election? Or if I am prohibited from voting for a candidate more than once, but still have to vote for additional candidates, then it is no longer my choice. Government would be forcing me to vote for candidates I don't want.

No matter how you slice it, RCV is a very bad idea. Thankfully it isn't even a consideration in Alaska.

You can educate yourself how RCV works (at least in Maine), and then if you feel the same way, more power to you. But it doesn't work the way you described above (you never have to vote for a candidate you don't want, and you can't vote more than once for a candidate) so currently your objections are baseless.

Have a look at a sample ballot: Maine Secretary of State's Office publishes ranked-choice voting ballots - Portland Press Herald

 

[Glitch]

You can educate yourself how RCV works (at least in Maine), and then if you feel the same way, more power to you. But it doesn't work the way you described above (you never have to vote for a candidate you don't want, and you can't vote more than once for a candidate) so currently your objections are baseless.

Have a look at a sample ballot: Maine Secretary of State's Office publishes ranked-choice voting ballots - Portland Press Herald

It is even worse that I expected. In Maine they give you 8 choices, one for each candidate plus one for a write-in. Let's assume that the voter picks just one of those candidates, but doesn't want to vote for any of the other candidates. If their candidate doesn't win 50% + 1 votes in the first round, they will have lost their opportunity to vote for their candidate in the run-off because RCV won't allow run-off elections. RCV also deprives voters of information concerning the ideology of the candidates. As if government is trying to deliberately deceive voters.

Like I said before, RCV requires absolute blind faith in one's government, because there is no audit trail. No way to ensure that government is actually performing the counts honestly and correctly. It is the primary reason why we still use paper ballots in Alaska, to keep government honest. RCV abolishes that and allows government fraud.

RCV may work for a political party primary, where everyone is of the same political ideology, but it is a horrendous idea for a general election.

 

[SkyChief]

"I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives." - Greg Gutfeld

ditto for me. :usflag2:

 

[Cassandra]

It is even worse that I expected. In Maine they give you 8 choices, one for each candidate plus one for a write-in. Let's assume that the voter picks just one of those candidates, but doesn't want to vote for any of the other candidates. If their candidate doesn't win 50% + 1 votes in the first round, they will have lost their opportunity to vote for their candidate in the run-off because RCV won't allow run-off elections. RCV also deprives voters of information concerning the ideology of the candidates. As if government is trying to deliberately deceive voters.

Like I said before, RCV requires absolute blind faith in one's government, because there is no audit trail. No way to ensure that government is actually performing the counts honestly and correctly. It is the primary reason why we still use paper ballots in Alaska, to keep government honest. RCV abolishes that and allows government fraud.

RCV may work for a political party primary, where everyone is of the same political ideology, but it is a horrendous idea for a general election.

I couldn't access the Portland Herald link but I still find your objections puzzling. Maine has paper ballots -unless things have changed since I moved away. Computer voting is quite vulnerable to hacking but I don't understand your assertion that RCV ballots cannot be audited. As for your other objections - there is no reason why R.C.V. need not have the "R" or "D" or "I" next to the name of the candidate. If people enter the voting booth knowing nothing about their candidate it is purely the voter's fault

RCV and Election Administration - FairVote

Finally, to ensure the integrity of the process, audit procedures should be used under any election method, and RCV is no exception. Audits (and even recounts) do not need to impose significantly more costs in terms of time and resources under RCV than under other election methods. The Audits and Recounts section attempts to provide best practices for applying these tools to RCV elections.

 

[akyron]

The GOP tax cut did little to increase that quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. .

Incorrect.

"Consumer Spending in the United States increased to 13071 USD Billion in the first quarter of 2019 from 13032.30 USD Billion in the fourth quarter of 2018. Consumer Spending in the United States averaged 5818.16 USD Billion from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 13071 USD Billion in the first quarter of 2019 and a record low of 1403.69 USD Billion in the first quarter of 1950."

 

[ChezC3]

This is kinda a convoluted answer..

Strictly speaking, I started as GOP, up until they elected McCain for the nom. Hated that SOB for a long time so I voted for OBAMA (big mistake, HUUUGE but had no real alternative) the first time round, and have voted for Gary Johnson since. I've voted Libertarian or Green vs. the two majors on the undercards for everything but judges of which I have always vote the incumbent out.

So, seeing as the Dems have gone full commie death cult on us, and seeing as the third party options can't seem to build any sort of steam, and the Dems have really gone full out commie death cult on us, I'm going to be forced to vote straight ticket GOP for the foreseeable future.

 

[concernedpuma]

If there is only two candidates, and I chose candidate A RCV would require me to pick additional canididates. Candidates I don't want, or candidates from other parties. If I had three picks, what would happen if I chose candidate A all three times? Isn't that the same as voting for a candidate three separate times in the same election? Or if I am prohibited from voting for a candidate more than once, but still have to vote for additional candidates, then it is no longer my choice. Government would be forcing me to vote for candidates I don't want.

No matter how you slice it, RCV is a very bad idea. Thankfully it isn't even a consideration in Alaska.

I think RCV is an idea that has merit. Of course, it will be more challenging to some to understand. It may not be a problem for all, but coming from Hanging Chad Florida, you can see my fear!
Regards,
CP

 

[Glitch]

I couldn't access the Portland Herald link but I still find your objections puzzling. Maine has paper ballots -unless things have changed since I moved away. Computer voting is quite vulnerable to hacking but I don't understand your assertion that RCV ballots cannot be audited. As for your other objections - there is no reason why R.C.V. need not have the "R" or "D" or "I" next to the name of the candidate. If people enter the voting booth knowing nothing about their candidate it is purely the voter's fault

RCV and Election Administration - FairVote

Finally, to ensure the integrity of the process, audit procedures should be used under any election method, and RCV is no exception. Audits (and even recounts) do not need to impose significantly more costs in terms of time and resources under RCV than under other election methods. The Audits and Recounts section attempts to provide best practices for applying these tools to RCV elections.

They may know about their candidate, its the other dozen or so on the ballet of whom they may not be aware. When I vote for a specific candidate to fill a specific position, I don't vote with 4, 6, or 8 other candidates in mind. Why would I want to vote for any other candidate for the same position? By the time I cast my vote I've already decided on the one, and only, candidate I want to fill the position. There is no second, third, or fourth place.

In a two candidate race RCV makes no sense whatsoever, and in a three or more candidate race RCV disenfranchises voters and increases the risk of government fraud to unacceptable levels.

 

[concernedpuma]

No poll.

I am a registered Independent. Most of my life I was a Republican. The GOP left me when it began to climb in bed with the religious right. It only became worse. Not long after Bush the Younger became President I said adios to the GOP and never looked back. The GOP sold its soul (not that either of the two ruling parties has one) to religionists and closeted dominionists. The GOP is now also the party of organized greed.

Clarification for the binary thinkers reading this post. My statement above regarding the GOP does not mean that I heart the Democratic Party. I do not. I do not belong to the Democratic Party. They are screwed up in their own way. However, if Donald Trump is the GOP candidate in 2020 I will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate may be.

However, if Donald Trump is the GOP candidate in 2020 I will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate may be.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure it is wise to pledge that at this point? I would almost guarantee there are Democrats in the race you wouldn't vote for. You may stay home, but viewing the Democratic menu is quite unappealing. I am curious about what would make you vote a blind ticket. Why are you so anti-President Trump? To your way of thinking; what has he done wrong? Serious question, factual, serious reply requested. That you just don't like him is too acceptable and certainly your right.
Regards,
CP

 

[Risky Thicket]

Are you sure it is wise to pledge that at this point? I would almost guarantee there are Democrats in the race you wouldn't vote for. You may stay home, but viewing the Democratic menu is quite unappealing. I am curious about what would make you vote a blind ticket. Why are you so anti-President Trump? To your way of thinking; what has he done wrong? Serious question, factual, serious reply requested. That you just don't like him is too acceptable and certainly your right.
Regards,
CP

Any Democrat over Trump, yes, in 2020. That assumes we still have a functioning democracy at that point.

Trump is damn near everything I do not want in a president. He is a failure as a human being, a reprehensible person, a huckster, a bigot, a pathological liar, and a failure at legititmate business. Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist. That alone should concern every person on earth as long as holds office.

 

[concernedpuma]

Any Democrat over Trump, yes, in 2020. That assumes we still have a functioning democracy at that point.

Trump is damn near everything I do not want in a president. He is a failure as a human being, a reprehensible person, a huckster, a bigot, a pathological liar, and a failure at legititmate business. Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist. That alone should concern every person on earth as long as holds office.

Don't see it anyway like that, but certainly respect your view. Perhaps someday, one of us will change our minds about President Trump. Just not this day.
Regards,
CP