- 20,813
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
So the 2nd coming can occur and all the Jews can be gone. Or something.
2022 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
- Thread starter ryzno
- 459 comments
- 30,206 views
- 5,468
- Alabamistan
"Cuz that's where Jesus was from".
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I was debating starting a topic on this, but then I figured it would just be easier to throw into an existing thread. Maybe if it becomes a large discussion, it can be branched off.
Anyway considering the upcoming election, a thought entered my head, is voting for candidates a terrible idea? Why can't we vote directly for ideas or policy? This election feel more significant than any I've voted in before not because the candidates but because it will directly influence abortion laws. It feels like for once, checking off one of the options won't come with unwanted side effects because I'm voting directly for very important policy.
I'll admit that I probably should have looked into the candidates more themselves by this point, especially as someone who refuses to be a two party voter, but initial research was not really inspiring. There is one crazy candidate I won't vote for ever, there is one typical candidate whose main appeal is not being the crazy one, and then there are a bunch of third parties that are a mixed bag and sadly have a small chance of winning. Not to mention I can only vote for one candidate for some reason. I feel like I'd rather just explain what I want to happen and then have people propose solutions to me rather than choose a specific person that may stand with me on one or two issues but also come with a ton of other baggage.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Does it sound realistic?
Anyway considering the upcoming election, a thought entered my head, is voting for candidates a terrible idea? Why can't we vote directly for ideas or policy? This election feel more significant than any I've voted in before not because the candidates but because it will directly influence abortion laws. It feels like for once, checking off one of the options won't come with unwanted side effects because I'm voting directly for very important policy.
I'll admit that I probably should have looked into the candidates more themselves by this point, especially as someone who refuses to be a two party voter, but initial research was not really inspiring. There is one crazy candidate I won't vote for ever, there is one typical candidate whose main appeal is not being the crazy one, and then there are a bunch of third parties that are a mixed bag and sadly have a small chance of winning. Not to mention I can only vote for one candidate for some reason. I feel like I'd rather just explain what I want to happen and then have people propose solutions to me rather than choose a specific person that may stand with me on one or two issues but also come with a ton of other baggage.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Does it sound realistic?
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
The idea is quite similar yes, and it's not something totally alien in the US, as can be gathered from my post. However in the US I don't think I've ever seen a desire to expand its role and replace elected representatives, at least not directly. I can also see some potential downsides and arguments for a hybrid system (that maybe just leans more toward direct policy over representation). Overall though it does feel like a better way of doing things than the current US system, which isn't exactly a high bar to pass, but it's something.
- 11,791
- Marin County
As a resident of a state that loves direct-democracy ballot measures, I think this is dangerous. The inherent problem is that most voters are not very knowledgeable on issues, though no fault of their own, and directly deciding policy is something that should require a little bit more thought than a few minutes at the ballot box. I actually have to spend a significant amount of time researching ballot measures to make sure I even know what they are about let alone understanding future consequences. Citizens are not professional law makers - they have a general idea of what policy they want, but specific issues I think require a greater level of expertise, research and finesse. The most egregious and ham-handed ballot measure ever passed in CA is Proposition 13 (I say that as a beneficiary of this policy) which cannot be changed by the legislature and has had enormous and unforeseen consequences for the state, particularly in the past few decades. Want to know why the state has a catastrophic housing and homelessness crisis or why many school districts run on shoestring budgets? Proposition 13 is a big part of it. That was a ballot measure that was just too good not to vote for - my property taxes won't go up? Hell yeah! That sounds great. There wasn't some extended "well, let's think about this" period. It just passed and was implemented, and cannot be changed unless all the property owners in the state just one day decide they want to pay a lot more taxes.
The other part of this is that special interest throw ridiculous amounts of money to influence ballot measures, often with great effect - like Uber effectively buying Proposition 22, which basically overruled legislation that was implemented by the state legislature just a year before and had popular support. I think direct-democracy can work, but they should be very broad topics (abortion, TBH is actually a really good direct-democracy choice) rather than any sort of specific policies. I would honestly like an electoral system more like Canada.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,058
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Yeah, tell us about it. -- "UK" Mikey
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
Totally agree. We hire people to do this job right. I can't tell you how many times Colorado or California has asked me about some random tax provision and I dive into the research only to find... gosh this is really complicated... it sure would be nice if it was someone's job to actually sort this stuff out because I literally cannot become enough of an expert in this area in time for the election. Current Colorado Prop 121, which appears on its face to be really simple, is actually quite a bit like that. Diving in only gets you lost.
Last edited:
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Yes, this is definitely an issue, even with democracy in general. Everyone gets to cast their vote, but that doesn't mean they understand the implications of the vote at all. However I think the root of this problem is how we vote, and you even pointed it out - if the first time someone sees a proposal is at the ballot box, the system has failed. A proper decision probably can't be made at that point. We do have options to make things better though. Currently candidates get a lot coverage way in advance of elections. Why not focus less on the people and more on the policies? I honestly don't really care about who gets into government and having researched my options due to the upcoming election I can't help but notice lots of useless fluff on voting sites. Candidates will post their life stories, pictures of themselves and their accomplishments, and quite a few have some paragraph somewhere explaining how they're just like me or something. It's all a waste of space. All I want to know is what will happen to the country/state/city when they get in office.
Yes. I am mailing in my ballot this year and it's making me think, should in person voting even be legal? With a mail in ballot I can sit down and go through each choice while researching at the same time and I have potentially months to do it. It enables a selection process that is so much more thorough and deliberate that I can't see why this isn't the standard at this point. I remember being a first time voter and physically going to the polling center. I had many more options than I expected and had no idea what most of them represented with no chance to even do a quick bit of investigation.
I agree here, but again the problem I see is how we traditionally vote. We need more discussion and passing of ideas back and forth rather than deciding on something and then chasing that initial idea. Maybe what we should do is have people come up with proposals and then have qualified candidates look at those proposals, find out what the people behind them really want, and then turn them into feasible detailed laws. Then in the end, the candidate with the best plan wins - and they also have an objective goal to be judged against. Less "I will lower taxes I promise" and more "In order to lower taxes we will have to reduce military spending by 20%" etc. There should also probably be some kind of unbiased external party that tries rank the feasibility of candidate's detailed plans to make sure that they aren't just wordy hollow promises that have no chance of actually being implemented in reality.
Basically the problem with lobbying. I used to just be outright anti lobbyist, but really we should have people asking the government to do things directly. It's just that what they ask for need to also stay within the confines of people's rights and also get approval from everyone that could be impacted. Absolute democracy, where anything is up for a vote just doesn't work, and should never be used as a form of government. What can or can't be enacted into law needs to be limited. One example that comes to my mind is tax law. HR Block, etc love to keep things complicated so they can sell tax assistance. The fact that they can do this makes no sense. Anything they propose should also be brought before US citizens as a whole for approval, as they are the ones that have to deal with the aftermath. If that was the case I'm sure the tax code would be a lot simpler.
We can have professional oversight while voting on policy directly though, can't we? I absolutely agree voting can be very complicated. I even question my own ability to make the correct decisions in some cases. Voting for a qualified person to run things for you helps with the complexity issue, but it also tends to bring up the problem I originally mentioned. A person is a package deal, so you tend to get a mixed bag. They will agree with you on A and B but they might also completely disagree with you on C and D. Why can't we vote directly for A and B and then find a qualified person who will work towards only those two things, not C and D?
Last edited:
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,211
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
That was a major benefit when I did mail in during COVID. I could take some time to look up each option, or at least eliminate options like who should be elected for the sewer department.
That probably doesn't cross the minds of people who strictly go for the D or R, but what if there are multiple Ds or Rs for the same position.
That probably doesn't cross the minds of people who strictly go for the D or R, but what if there are multiple Ds or Rs for the same position.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
This is precisely why universal mail-in voting should be a thing. However, it's also one of the reasons why universal mail-in voting isn't a thing, the people running want you to vote with the least amount of information possible, otherwise voters would be able to find out how terrible they are.That was a major benefit when I did mail in during COVID. I could take some time to look up each option, or at least eliminate options like who should be elected for the sewer department.
That probably doesn't cross the minds of people who strictly go for the D or R, but what if there are multiple Ds or Rs for the same position.
- 11,791
- Marin County
I feel like ballot measure should include a voting option of "I do not believe this issue should be decided by ballot measure" because even the binary yes/no does not always indicate which is the "do nothing" option. I also think that it's borderline irresponsible to allow direct democracy legislation to be enacted with a bare majority of votes without at least some sort of "quorum" or threshold participation rate. The fact that Brexit, arguably the most consequential direct-democracy policy decision yet this century, was decided with a 51.89% majority on a 72% turnout is just mind blowing. It's extraordinarily unlikely that Brexit was actually the will of the majority of British people, and yet the referendum passed.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
The above comments are all very relevant, however the more fundamental problem is that the American public appears about to elect a Republican majority in the House and possibly the Senate. The rationale for this appears to be "the economy stupid". The US is suffering from high inflation, which Americans seem to blame on the Biden administration, even though it is a global phenomenon that a US President has very limited ability to control. On the other hand, Americans seem perfectly willing to vote for a party that is willing to ignore an attempt by the former US President to overturn the results of a Presidential election. American voters apparently see this as no big deal. It's hard to put a positive spin on the situation. 😕
- 23,902
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
As a Brit, who didn't vote for Brexit, i sadly think that the referendum decision did reflect the will of the majority. Unfortunately, that majority was probably swayed by the great deal of money used to push the brexit agenda, much of which no doubt originated from abroad. Direct democracy is no more immune to influence through those groups that can afford to push their own favoured policy/agenda than any other form of democracy.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
Alright, let's have an honest look at what congressional majority for republicans (both house and senate) can accomplish.
- Impeachment (but not conviction and removal from office)
- End of the Jan. 6th hearings. Possibly starting other hearings.
- End of investigation into Trump tax documents (congressionally).
- No federal help for abortion restrictions, but also no federal ban which requires holding the presidency
- Likely overturn of gay marriage. And I think this one might be the biggest concern of the group for me. The supreme court is likely to strike gay marriage during the next two years, and congress couldn't get it done before the midterms (because republicans dragged their feet).
- 11,791
- Marin County
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
It's a lot of stuff, all the way down to ballot drop box placement. But there are 4 major issues that distort representation. The two I was referring to mostly in response to the mid-terms was:
1) Gerrymandering of House of Representative districts.
2) Disproportionate representation against population centers via the Senate
The other two big ones are:
3) The Electoral College process for the executive.
4) The Supreme Court.
I want to remind everyone in the US who is seeing a bunch of judges that are up for vote in their state that you get to vote for those judges, most of whom you cannot possibly have an informed opinion on because they handle day-to-day enforcement of crime that is particular to each case. There are a million judge names, and you simply cannot have an informed vote, but you're asked to anyway. Unless there are specific facts about a particular judge doing something stupid (like many things regarding Jan. 6th), I tend to abstain from these votes out of principle. But anyway, you're asked to vote for these judges, and it's nearly impossible to be informed on the matter. But the supreme friggin court?!? The judges whose record you ABSOLUTELY CAN keep track of and be informed on, and whose decisions largely reflect broad principles, those people you CANNOT vote for.
Edit: To those keeping track, yes I did just mention the entirety of the US government as having problems with representation of the will of the people.
Last edited:
- 23,902
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I know there's a thread for political pix/screenshots/cartoons, but this is relevant to the imidiate topic.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,968
- Mile High City
...and to a greater extent, the Senate. A vote for a US Senator in Wyoming carries 68 times the weight of a vote for a Senator in California.
- 11,791
- Marin County
We have deeply flawed representation, that much is clear.
For example - If you're a Republican in my district you basically have no say in anything, ever. You have zero representation at municipal, county, state, and federal level. In terms of the democracy, outside of ballot measures, you don't exist. My district is particularly blue, but even if it was just barely but reliably blue this would still be the case. I'm not sure what the answer to this is but its clear the levels of anger at the disenfranchisement are only getting more extreme. I think it would be better if everyone voted in both primaries. "I'm not a Democrat, but this is the Democrat candidate I prefer" or the opposite. In this way, you at least have a seat at the table in the decision making.
For example - If you're a Republican in my district you basically have no say in anything, ever. You have zero representation at municipal, county, state, and federal level. In terms of the democracy, outside of ballot measures, you don't exist. My district is particularly blue, but even if it was just barely but reliably blue this would still be the case. I'm not sure what the answer to this is but its clear the levels of anger at the disenfranchisement are only getting more extreme. I think it would be better if everyone voted in both primaries. "I'm not a Democrat, but this is the Democrat candidate I prefer" or the opposite. In this way, you at least have a seat at the table in the decision making.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
That's how I felt in Utah, if you're not a Mormon Republican your voice didn't mean much at the federal level. The state level was a little better, but you either got a Mormom Republican or a conservative Democrat with one or two liberal Democrats sprinkled in that couldn't do anything anyway. The state legislature even had a supermajority that could override the governor and his "woke" policies.
Similar threads
- Poll
