|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Soror Magna--
I'm not talking about fake fraud to keep people from voting. But there is fraud that involves "losing" ballots, or creating pre-filled ballots. Example:
"Scavenged ballot box lids haunt S.F. elections." (SFGate)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
A couple of days ago C4 (in the UK) ran a program about the possibility of Trump becoming President. It talked a lot about the way he appeals to all those poor white Americans who feel alienated from their country, which seems plausible. However, it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years. That seems incredible to me. Have things really been that bad for that long?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
... it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years...
That will depend greatly on the details of the statistics behind that.
On an individual basis, because most workers will have either entered the workforce or retired during that 40 year span, so will have significant changes in income levels one way or the other.
Looking at groups, such as blue-collar workers aged 31 - 40, and comparing the numbers across 40 years, might give that sort of results, since we've lost a lot of well-paid manufacturing jobs over the years, and we're still recovering from the last downturn.
The current economic recovery looks pretty healthy here in Oregon, but it is actually fairly localized. High-tech industries in the Silicon Forest region are facing a shortage of qualified applicants, but the more rural parts of the State, and workers without a college degree, aren't sharing in the recovery to the same extent.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Local council finds two missing ballot boxes - after announcing 'winning' candidate
Happens anywhere?
This is exactly what I meant by the sudden shift to vote by mail in the midterms.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
GOP intransigence explained.
The gist: "After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it’s an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class." Naturally, he argues, this cannot be sustained and is in fact collapsing now.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is it me or is he not just a little bit camp?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years. That seems incredible to me. Have things really been that bad for that long?
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
e.g. what we can do with a smart phone here is pretty amazing when you think about the price and efficiency.
Information is cheap. Entertainment is cheap. Connecting to people is cheap. Buying stuff is easier (as long as you have some money) and takes less time.
The cost of shipping stuff in the States astounds me - it costs next to nothing to ship stuff across that country in 2 days. The efficiencies of the movement of goods is astounding compared to most of the world.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years. That seems incredible to me. Have things really been that bad for that long?
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
e.g. what we can do with a smart phone here is pretty amazing when you think about the price and efficiency.
Information is cheap. Entertainment is cheap. Connecting to people is cheap. Buying stuff is easier (as long as you have some money) and takes less time.
The cost of shipping stuff in the States astounds me - it costs next to nothing to ship stuff across that country in 2 days. The efficiencies of the movement of goods is astounding compared to most of the world.
Food and many clothes are cheaper too but Take home pay is apposite. Consider the cost of the roof over your head, whether you buy or rent. It's an absurd proportion of take-home pay in the UK and seems similar in the US.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sioni Sais--
San Francisco's affordable housing crisis is especially bad, sometimes considered the worst in the nation. Lots of info out there, but this article is in fairly plain English:
"The San Francisco Rent Explosion: Part II." (Priceonomics)
It's from 2014, but things have only gotten worse here, since then.
And here's an excellent feature article on how easy it can be for everyday working folks to become homeless here:
"Inside San Francisco's housing crisis: 'We are not just numbers. We're persons.'" (Vox)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
Most of that is is things one doesn't need. The true measure is cost of living, which Sioni and GK begin to reference.
Food, housing, clothing, health care, education, transportation, etc. I would add representation to that. In America especially, the lower the income, the less one is represented. All these add to a greater and greater disparity between those that have and those that don't and move more people into the latter category. The U.K. Is heading this way as well. If Canada isn't, you are fortunate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
A good article summarizing the costs of being poor. They calculate that expenses overall have risen 25% in the past 30 years. But housing has risen by a much larger percentage.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
Most of that is is things one doesn't need. The true measure is cost of living, which Sioni and GK begin to reference.
Food, housing, clothing, health care, education, transportation, etc. I would add representation to that. In America especially, the lower the income, the less one is represented. All these add to a greater and greater disparity between those that have and those that don't and move more people into the latter category. The U.K. Is heading this way as well. If Canada isn't, you are fortunate.
Welcome to the trickle down theory in action. 40 years of lower taxes, privatisation and smaller govt.
Reminds me of that Billy Bragg song, .
Between the Wars The part that gets me going is this:
Call up the Craftsman, bring me the Draughtsman
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent to any Government
That does not deny a man a living wage.
THERE is an anthem for the disenfranchised white working class of the Anglosphere. No, America, you are neither alone nor unique. Come back to mother Empire. We want you and we need you.
(OK, got a bit emotional and went too far with the Empire thing, but it's a secret dream of mine. I want you America, and I need you. Don't elect a bloke who could announce a policy on April 1, and have people really have to consider whether its actually an April Fools joke).
FFS, what candidate for the American Presidency would float withdrawing from north Asia while China is busy developing bases in the South China Sea? Screw the Middle East and Terrorism, there is your real existential threat right there.
[ 04. April 2016, 03:36: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
simontoad--
So do you want the US to hook up with the UK? Oz? The be-straggled Commonwealth?
Is this going to be like the "Sister Wives" reality TV show?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Ahem, Canada has first dibs on the Lost Provinces.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Surely, that's for consenting provinces, and not for anyone to cry "dibs!" on?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sober Preacher's Kid: Ahem, Canada has first dibs on the Lost Provinces.
Well, if Cruz wins you'll have your way.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
40 years ago you could take your high school education, get a good job at a factory, buy a house, support your family, look forward to a secure retirement, and reasonably expect your kids would have an even better life than you had.
That world is gone. Today you can have a full time job and be below poverty level - if you can find a full time job.
Increasingly jobs are part time and yet require being available 24/7 on a rotating unpredictable schedule, which means the worker can't take a second part time job to get up to full time hours. Many jobs are "independent contractor" positions. Part time and "independent" jobs pay zero time off for vacation or sickness, zero provision for medical insurance or retirement.
If the wage value stayed the same (in real dollars) it has lost 1/3rd of actual value unless benefits are included in wage measurements.
I know professionals (accountants, actuaries, etc) who 15 years ago were told all positions will be paid 50% less than the previous year because the bosses want more money for themselves. I have friends with PhDs teaching at university level who are in permanent "adjunct" positions paid not much more than minimum wage and no hope of tenure ever.
And while we have new toys like smart phones, they cost a heck of a lot more than ye land line or public phone booth.
As with anything, there are winners and losers, and manipulation of what gets counted or not in inflation figures, but overall real wages for most people have been stagnant and job security significantly eroded.
Especially if over 50 it can be very hard to find a job in what used to be the highest earning years when you finally had the house paid off and kids grown and could save for retirement - instead you get laid off in yet another merger or downsizing. "Only 60 percent of baby boomers report having any retirement savings." Periodic unemployment especially in later work years is part of that problem. Bomers are unprepared for retirement
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera.
Um, most people don't do that.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera.
Um, most people don't do that.
Hmmm... I went to a movie, an opera, and live theatre in the past two weeks, and I'll be going to another play and two or three concerts in the next couple of weeks. No, live entertainment is not cheap, but I don't spend money on smart phones, cable television, sporting events...
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
...and many people don't have the money for *any* of the entertainment mentioned, live or not...
Og also said:
quote:
Buying stuff is easier (as long as you have some money) and takes less time.
I'm not quite sure whether Og meant that in a nuanced way; but lots of people don't have anywhere near the money and other resources they need for basic survival, let alone entertainment. And that increasingly applies to the middle class.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
I live in a city where the smartphone is ubiquitous in all social strata above the homeless.
I must be projecting that. Apologies.
The smartphone is an entertainment and information machine.
[ 05. April 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
If people in the middle class don't have enough money for basic survival, are they still middle class?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If people in the middle class don't have enough money for basic survival, are they still middle class?
I don't know. My best friend is an elementary school teacher, nominally middle class, and for a while there she was selling what few somewhat valuable things she had (family antiques, Native American collectibles) to meet her expenses. She got some relief when she finally paid off her car and her student loans. No TV, no cell phone.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I live in a city where the smartphone is ubiquitous in all social strata above the homeless.
I work with the homeless in our city, and many/most have cell phones, many of them smart phones. It's honestly not a luxury-- they depend on them for many of the social services they receive. The shelter that I help run is only open when the weather hits certain markers (temperature, precipitation)-- they call a number to get a recorded message to know if it is open or not. When they get into the system where they start receiving aid, their social worker will have them calling all over the place to check on section 8 housing, get that mental health eval they're requiring, etc. They will need access to websites for various agencies or to apply for jobs.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
cliffdweller--
Who pays for the phone and service? Even with the cheapest pre-paid, you've still got to acquire a phone. A non-smartphone can be had for under $20 bucks, around here; but IME they can't really access the Web.
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This (European) morning's BBC website coverage of the Wisconsin primary includes the following (emphasis mine): quote:
Mr Trump leads the Republican race, but there are concerns that he could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals have pinned their hopes on a contested convention.
The first turn of phrase makes it sound to me as though the BBC think him securing the nomination is definitely the best option. The second makes it sound as though the front-runner ought to get the nomination and that any other outcome of the convention would be an unusual, unseemly challenge, like "contesting" a will; whereas up until now I've only ever heard anyone talk about a "brokered" or "negotiated" convention, which sounds a lot more neutral to my ears.
Am I the only one to think this nugget sounds oddly biased?
[ 06. April 2016, 05:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A pressurised copywriter on a bad night? I think it's just text produced in haste, under 24/7 news pressure.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Trump seems less likely to get the nomination now. Looks like his stupid nonsense has finally caught up with him. But Cruz is not a 'good thing'. I think the odds have tipped towards a brokered conference. Maybe the GOP will pull a rabbit out of a hat?
And Bernie gains a bit more momentum on the Dem side. It might get pretty close now. What does the delegates table look like now?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This (European) morning's BBC website coverage of the Wisconsin primary includes the following (emphasis mine): quote:
Mr Trump leads the Republican race, but there are concerns that he could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals have pinned their hopes on a contested convention.
The first turn of phrase makes it sound to me as though the BBC think him securing the nomination is definitely the best option. The second makes it sound as though the front-runner ought to get the nomination and that any other outcome of the convention would be an unusual, unseemly challenge, like "contesting" a will; whereas up until now I've only ever heard anyone talk about a "brokered" or "negotiated" convention, which sounds a lot more neutral to my ears.
Am I the only one to think this nugget sounds oddly biased?
Here's what that link says now:
quote:
Mr Trump leads the race, but could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals hope for a brokered convention where voting among candidates would start from scratch.
In your quoted text, I think the "there are concerns" part is bad (why not say who has concerns?), but "contested convention" seems a pretty innocuous (and widely used) phrase. If no one has a majority before the convention, we don't know if the result will be "brokered" or "negotiated", but it certainly will be "contested".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I'm glad at least one copy editor has seen fit to make changes to what I spotted.
Maybe "a contested convention" is widely used and I'd not noticed it, but semantically it suggests the outcome of the convention has been decided and then disputed after the fact, rather than being negotiated from start to finish (which is as I understand is what can happen if no outright winner has emerged by then).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Strictly speaking the convention may become a contest, but it isn't the convention itself that is contested - unless one is debating whether the convention ought to happen at all or whether it has legitimacy in its decision etc.
Ambiguity could arise in that if the nomination is contested that could mean that the nomination is up for grabs and being contested, or that the nomination has been awarded and we are challenging the decision.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
In American usage, a contested election is one which is an actual contest. An election which is not contested is one in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion - one where there is only one candidate, for example. Party conventions are called contested or not in the same way. Most of the time the televised voting is a formality, as one candidate has lined up enough votes to win - there is no contest. If Trump doesn't have enough delegates going in, there will be a contest.
Another example: if there are three open seats on the vestry and only three people run, it is an uncontested election. If four or more run, it is contested.
If someone thinks the results are off, they may contest the results or the outcome.
[ 06. April 2016, 13:43: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
cliffdweller--
Who pays for the phone and service? Even with the cheapest pre-paid, you've still got to acquire a phone. A non-smartphone can be had for under $20 bucks, around here; but IME they can't really access the Web.
Thx.
Most of those I know with smart phones are newly homeless (i.e. in the last year), the phone may have been acquired prior to losing job/becoming disabled/ whatever circumstances led to their economic downfall. The bill would be paid the same way any other bill is paid-- out of benefits, money scrounged thru begging or day labor, selling off other possessions, etc. And of course, with all of us, people will vary in what they prioritize when things get tough. Sometimes the homeless make financial choices that seem odd to us (e.g. paying $150/month for a storage unit containing the odd sad remains of their former life when they'd probably be better off saving for an apt) but there are reasons behind the behavior-- some good, some illogical. But prioritizing a phone, even a smart phone, does make sense to me, given it's usefulness in a variety of situations-- both for accessing services and for emergencies (which are going to pop up a lot more often on the street).
The long term homeless (5 or more years on the street) I know are less likely to have phones of any sort-- that may be generational but even more probably has to do with just the shockingly rapid deterioration that happens on the streets, and the likelihood that something like a phone will be stolen.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting strategy:
"Stop-Trump group found Trump’s weakness and is using it." (MSNBC)
I find something a little worrying about the process described therein. It feels a bit strange to ask the entire country to vote on who will be the candidate only to have the decision made by a small group of delegates who, once elected, have no accountability to their electorate.
I guess it worries me because, while in this case it would be done to prevent Trump from getting the nomination even if he gets a plurality of the popular vote, I can envisage other cases where it could be done to give Trump (or someone like him) the nomination even if the plurality of votes went against him.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, I'm glad at least one copy editor has seen fit to make changes to what I spotted.
Maybe "a contested convention" is widely used and I'd not noticed it, but semantically it suggests the outcome of the convention has been decided and then disputed after the fact, rather than being negotiated from start to finish (which is as I understand is what can happen if no outright winner has emerged by then).
"Contested convention" is fairly widely used in my experience, or at least as widely used as something not often seen can be. "Brokered convention" implies that there is some "broker" behind the scenes adjudicating (and possibly manipulating) the outcome. In other words, the "smoke filled room" of yesteryear. If one thing has become clear in this primary election cycle, it's that the Republican party has no one who could reasonably fill the role of convention broker.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting strategy:
"Stop-Trump group found Trump’s weakness and is using it." (MSNBC)
I find something a little worrying about the process described therein. It feels a bit strange to ask the entire country to vote on who will be the candidate only to have the decision made by a small group of delegates who, once elected, have no accountability to their electorate.
Possibly true, but in a country that uses the Electoral College to choose the President it seems a bit late to be worried about that sort of thing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I guess it worries me because, while in this case it would be done to prevent Trump from getting the nomination even if he gets a plurality of the popular vote, I can envisage other cases where it could be done to give Trump (or someone like him) the nomination even if the plurality of votes went against him.
Isn't that exactly what's being envisaged here? Working the delegate selection procedure to give the Republican nomination to someone other than the plurality delegate holder (presumed to be Donald Trump at this point)?
Still, an understanding of exactly what kind of contest you're engaged in is critical in these kinds of endeavors. If Trump hasn't done his homework or just assumed he'd have an outright majority or thinks that everyone loves him so much that he'll win by acclaim, that's his problem.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that exactly what's being envisaged here? Working the delegate selection procedure to give the Republican nomination to someone other than the plurality delegate holder (presumed to be Donald Trump at this point)?
Yes, absolutely. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent to be happy with such a process if it gives you the result you want this time, because next time it may go the other way.
Of course, I'm probably betraying my utter lack of knowledge of Republican Party candidate selection history. For all I know they've used such a process dozens of times already and this would in no way set a new precedent.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Contested convention" is fairly widely used in my experience, or at least as widely used as something not often seen can be. "Brokered convention" implies that there is some "broker" behind the scenes adjudicating (and possibly manipulating) the outcome. In other words, the "smoke filled room" of yesteryear.
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't thought of "contested" in the sense of "there actually being a contest", more in the sense of "the original outcome being called into dispute", no doubt a leak from my French. It had also occurred to me that, as you suggest, that disputing even the majority delegate-holder might not be very equitable, even if it's desirable.
I still note the BBC have dropped "concern" though
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I'm probably betraying my utter lack of knowledge of Republican Party candidate selection history. For all I know they've used such a process dozens of times already and this would in no way set a new precedent.
For most states (and other jurisdictions), delegates to the Republican National Convention are legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate to whom they were assigned during their state's primary or caucus, but only on the first ballot. If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock. (Another way around this would be to allow victory with a plurality rather than a majority, but the Republican party doesn't seem interested in having a nominee who was supported by less than half their convention.)
What makes this potentially unprecedented is that this is the first time since the implementation of the primary/caucus system (mostly starting in the 1960s; 1972 was the first year all 50 states had a Republican primary or caucus) that no one would have an outright majority of delegates going in to the convention. In 2012 (for example) it wouldn't have mattered if most of the delegates were actually Ron Paul or Rick Santorum supporters since enough of them were legally obligated to vote for Mitt Romney on the first ballot to insure that that wouldn't be a second ballot. Packing the delegate bench with your loyalists is only a valid strategy if you're counting on the convention needing to resort to tie-breaking measures.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock.
One other way would be to say that delegates pledged to the candidate who has the plurality in the first ballot must stay with that candidate, but the others can change. It would still allow for the possibility that the most popular candidate would lose, but it would need everyone else to unite behind a single candidate.
(and yes, I realise I just described a version of the Alternative Vote system)
With every delegate being free in the second ballot you could have the insane situation where the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote doesn't get a single delegate in the second ballot.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yeah, you really need some sort of weighted vote system. There's a difference between voting for candidate A as your preference among 3 or 4 choices, all of which would be to somewhat acceptable, and what appears to be the case among the GOP-- which seems to be evenly divided between Trump and "anyone but Trump". The fact that "anyone but Trump" is spread out among several candidates makes Trump's overwhelming lead seem more of a consensus than it really is.
As a Dem, I'm tempted constantly to just chortle as the GOP goes down in flames. But there's really nothing to stop the same thing happening on our side of the aisle. Indeed, the contest on our side which began with such promise-- looking like a conversation between intelligent adults when compared to the toddler tantrums and adolescent **** measuring on the other side-- is starting to devolve into similar problems with accusations of back-room shenanigans.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One other way would be to say that delegates pledged to the candidate who has the plurality in the first ballot must stay with that candidate, but the others can change.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah, you really need some sort of weighted vote system.
Those might make sense if one were designing a system from scratch, but the current convention system is an adaptation of an earlier system where delegates were simply appointed by the various bosses and powers-that-be in state parties and weren't bound by anything other than however much loyalty they felt to the instructions they received from their state party.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With every delegate being free in the second ballot you could have the insane situation where the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote doesn't get a single delegate in the second ballot.
Or the convention picking someone who wasn't even running in the primaries and received the votes of no one. (Paul Ryan is often floated as a possibility in this regard.) There are some rules about this, but those can be re-written by the rules committee which meets just prior to the convention.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For most states (and other jurisdictions), delegates to the Republican National Convention are legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate to whom they were assigned during their state's primary or caucus, but only on the first ballot. If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock. (Another way around this would be to allow victory with a plurality rather than a majority, but the Republican party doesn't seem interested in having a nominee who was supported by less than half their convention.) ...
You make it sound like a papal election with an extra twist.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
Wouldn't this guy have the responsibility of brokering the convention if necessary?
Theoretically yes. However, as I noted eight and a half months ago(!), Reince Priebus has shown himself to be singularly ineffectual during this primary season. If he has the power/inclination to "broker" the Republican nominating process, what's he been waiting for? Mr. Priebus may be the one listed as officially "running" the Republican National Convention, but I have a hard time seeing him exerting any sort of control or influence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
In my imagination Reince Priebus trying to broker (or even manage) a contested Republican Convention looks a lot like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House [video].
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
How long has it been since a DNC or RNC chairperson has wielded much power? The party chairs have seemed like little more than fundraisers in chief for quire some time. There may be a need for more powerful party chairs now that the nominating processes are becoming much more protracted and the conventions may go back to being more than just coronations. The Bernie camp was fuming over how Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the DNC was allegedly making things easier for Hillary and more difficult for Bernie with the number of and timing of debates (with the assumption, not necessarily true, that debates were good for Bernie and bad for Hillary) - so maybe she's a more powerful party chair than Priebus. But that may only be because she is perceived as a Clinton loyalist and both of the Clintons (and President Obama, who is increasingly putting his weight behind Hillary now that Biden is definitely not running) carry so much weight in the party.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
