US midterms: First results hours away as Biden's presidency faces change regardless of results

[Raw Shark]

Well, the stripper officially won in Colorado. If anything, her showing has provided a good map showing which people should be declared too stupid to be allowed to breed.

My best stripper friend would make a fine congresswoman, but her ambition is to do a lot of pro bono work for the ACLU after she's filthy rich and too old to get naked in public profitably.

[Raw Shark]

If anything, her showing has provided a good map showing which people should be declared too stupid to be allowed to breed.

Ghetto Edit: Regarding Boebert specifically, she's from a beef-ranching town that is literally called Rifle. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Colorado is mostly a deep red state outside of a few of the most populous cities (ie: Boulder, Pueblo, and Denver in about that order).

[Gandalf]

Well, now there's the wrinkle that it's now part of the constitution that the max anyone can be PotUS is 10 years, so you only get two elected terms.

For every FDR that arguably did great things in three terms and change there could be a Trump - imagine three terms with him.

We don't have to imagine three terms, because he lost the election in 2020. So I'm not sure what your point is here. M

[Broomstick]

It is possible (and has been done) for a person who loses re-election to PotUS to win that office again in the future. Trump can legally be president again if he can convince enough people to vote for him.

[Gandalf]

Yes, a person can Grover Cleveland it. But that's not particularly relevant when discussing exceeding an arbitrary amount of time in the big chair.

[Ralin]

Artificially limiting time in the job because an eighteenth century slave enthusiast did it is pointless. If voters don't want someone to run for a third term, they can vote for someone else.

Well, now there's the wrinkle that it's now part of the constitution that the max anyone can be PotUS is 10 years, so you only get two elected terms.

For every FDR that arguably did great things in three terms and change there could be a Trump - imagine three terms with him.

If someone like Trump managed to win not just a second but a third term I think it can be fairly said that we collectively deserve what comes of it.

And as noted...that's never happened. They made the precedent a hard law because a Democrat president was too popular and won too many terms.

[The_Saint]

Question, from a foreigner, regarding the USA term limits. Are the term limits cumulative or per sitting. eg if it's ten years effectively being two terms could Trump sit for only one more term chalking up two terms total or could he get back in in 2024 and then serve two terms for three total?

[Raw Shark]

Question, from a foreigner, regarding the USA term limits. Are the term limits cumulative or per sitting. eg if it's ten years effectively being two terms could Trump sit for only one more term chalking up two terms total or could he get back in in 2024 and then serve two terms for three total?

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

[The_Saint]

<snip>

Righto, so hypothetically if he does get in he only gets one more term unless he can push through a Xi Jinping style ammendment.

Mind you I wouldn't mind such a rule here in Australia, though historically Menzies (18 years across 8 election wins not including the 8 year gap between the first and second win) was supposedly a decent Prime Minister within my memory we had Howard and he was bad enough with 11 years.

[Solauren]

The only way Trump could get the extra 'Term' as POTUS is if he was on a Ticket with someone else and became Vice President, and then the actual POTUS stepped down or otherwise was removed from power.

[The_Saint]

Another thought, as a foreigner (and though slightly off topic I think we've strayed far enough in the discussion otherwise if a mod can either alert me or just shift it)...

What's the deal with USA and voter registration showing party affiliation???? and secondly that information being (possibly publicly) searchable???

So sure, plenty of people in Aus will openly discuss which party they may or may not vote for but it just screams an invasion of privacy to have to openly declare which party you affiliate with and then for that information be available? I realise my understanding of the second part may be way off but I keep seeing it in news stories where a particular person may be discussed and the party affiliation via voter registration is made mention of in a way as if that is to condemn or redeem an individual. (eg in the FBI raids Trump residence thread, a news article made mention that the special investigator is registered as party independent.

Politico reported that Smith was registered to vote as a political independent, not a Democrat or a Republican.

What's the socially accepted reason for this?

[Ralin]

The only way Trump could get the extra 'Term' as POTUS is if he was on a Ticket with someone else and became Vice President, and then the actual POTUS stepped down or otherwise was removed from power.

According to a VERY silly interpretation of the Constitution that is unlikely to ever actually fly.

but I keep seeing it in news stories where a particular person may be discussed and the party affiliation via voter registration is made mention of in a way as if that is to condemn or redeem an individual. (eg in the FBI raids Trump residence thread, a news article made mention that the special investigator is registered as party independent.

Politico reported that Smith was registered to vote as a political independent, not a Democrat or a Republican.

What's the socially accepted reason for this?

That seems self-explanatory. We have a two-party system and the division between those parties is frequently bitter and intense. Which party someone is a member of is very likely to color their judgment and can raise questions about how fair and unbiased they'd be in many official capacities, whereas, say, a Republican like Mueller producing evidence that a Republican president committed crimes is especially credible because he has no reason not to give Trump as much slack as possible for political reasons.

[Broomstick]

Yes, a person can Grover Cleveland it. But that's not particularly relevant when discussing exceeding an arbitrary amount of time in the big chair.

I think there's an argument that can be made for limiting the amount of time any one person sits in such a powerful position. The 10 year limit isn't entirely arbitrary - it allows a person to be elected twice, and if they're VP stepping in for a deceased or otherwise removed from office president they aren't penalized for serving half a term or less. Always seemed reasonable to me, but if you wish to argue for no term limits or different term limits please feel free to present your side, I am happy to listen.

[Broomstick]

What's the deal with USA and voter registration showing party affiliation???? and secondly that information being (possibly publicly) searchable???

There is absolutely NO requirement to declare a party when registering to vote in the US.

There is often an option to do so, but it is entirely voluntary.

And once you're in the voting both no one knows how you vote.

If you choose to vote in a primary election then you will have to choose to vote in the primary of a particular party, and which primary you vote in does become a matter of public record (but not who you voted for). But you aren't required to pay dues or anything, and you can vote for one party primary one time around and a different one the next time around.

[Lord Revan]

I suppose the reason this confuses us outsiders is that at least here in Finland vote secrecy is more or less absolute. As far as I know there's no legal way for an outsider to find out who I voted if they don't want or can't ask that from me directly and even than there's no obligation for me to reply.

[Gandalf]

I think there's an argument that can be made for limiting the amount of time any one person sits in such a powerful position. The 10 year limit isn't entirely arbitrary - it allows a person to be elected twice, and if they're VP stepping in for a deceased or otherwise removed from office president they aren't penalized for serving half a term or less. Always seemed reasonable to me, but if you wish to argue for no term limits or different term limits please feel free to present your side, I am happy to listen.

Term limits artificially limits the selection that a party has come election time to run their candidate of choice, while promoting short term cyclical thinking. As an example, as soon as Obama beat Romney, Democrats' political efforts had to look to 2016, and how the Obama presidency would lead into the next candidacy. The Republican hate machine turned on Clinton because she was the most likely successor. Obama could be sidelined, because his fate was sealed. Comparatively, FDR could run on his record, and managed to get the US from the Depression to most of the way through WW2. As I outlined earlier, having someone like Garner become the candidate in 1940 would have sacrificed significant political capital, which the country needed to face its various crises.

If voters don't like someone running for a third term, elections exist.

[Zaune]

If you choose to vote in a primary election then you will have to choose to vote in the primary of a particular party, and which primary you vote in does become a matter of public record (but not who you voted for). But you aren't required to pay dues or anything, and you can vote for one party primary one time around and a different one the next time around.

That part is what non-Americans find so weird. Especially because the parties don't seem to have any control over their membership rolls as a result.

[LadyTevar]

If you choose to vote in a primary election then you will have to choose to vote in the primary of a particular party, and which primary you vote in does become a matter of public record (but not who you voted for). But you aren't required to pay dues or anything, and you can vote for one party primary one time around and a different one the next time around.

That part is what non-Americans find so weird. Especially because the parties don't seem to have any control over their membership rolls as a result.

In my experience, if you have declared yourself Democrat, you are on the State/County rolls as a declared Democrat from then on, and in the Primaries you can ONLY vote for those on the Democrat's ballot. There is an Elections Office for the County, they answer to the Secretary of State, who also has a copy of Name, Address, and Polling Station for both the Democrat and Republican rolls, with a smaller Independent roll. In Theory this information is given to the National Party, but in practice it seems to be kept at the State Level.
I do know Counties use the Voting Rolls as the pool for Jury Selection. (still wondering how I've managed to not be called up for that)

To make a change from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa) you have to go to the Election Office and do paperwork. That paperwork is sent to the Sec of State's office, and the rolls changed. There is a time limit on how close to a Primary Election this can be done, I think 3-6months.

[Broomstick]

In my experience, if you have declared yourself Democrat, you are on the State/County rolls as a declared Democrat from then on, and in the Primaries you can ONLY vote for those on the Democrat's ballot...snip...To make a change from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa) you have to go to the Election Office and do paperwork. That paperwork is sent to the Sec of State's office, and the rolls changed. There is a time limit on how close to a Primary Election this can be done, I think 3-6months.

It's different here in Indiana. They record if you voted in the last primary and which party, but at the next primary you can just walk in and ask for whichever ballot you want. No need to go to an office and do paperwork.

Because having 50+ voting systems is the American way I guess. Yeah, doesn't make a ton of sense to me, either.

[Zaune]

To make a change from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa) you have to go to the Election Office and do paperwork. That paperwork is sent to the Sec of State's office, and the rolls changed. There is a time limit on how close to a Primary Election this can be done, I think 3-6months.

While I think the time limit is probably a good idea, am I right to infer that the actual parties don't have any sort of veto over these applications? Because that must severely limit either party's ability to prevent bad actors from attending party meetings and other events.

[Raw Shark]

While I think the time limit is probably a good idea, am I right to infer that the actual parties don't have any sort of veto over these applications? Because that must severely limit either party's ability to prevent bad actors from attending party meetings and other events.

You are correct. In fact, here in Soviet Massholistan where a huge turn-out for Biden, Sanders, and Warren in the primary (all of whom she found acceptable or better, being a progressive female Jew who could stomach the "safe" option also) and for the winner of that in the general was guaranteed, the girl I was dating in the summer of 2019 registered as a Republican specifically so she could vote against Trump in the primary in a futile but amusing attempt to get Bill Weld on the ballot instead of him. I pointed out to her that no matter how fast or how long she switched back after that, she would be on all of the GOP mailing lists forever.

[Zaune]

I wasn't thinking of voting in primaries so much as people going to local party meetings with intent to leak confidential information, trying to use the fact that the party's internal rules say meetings open to all registered members as an end-run around a restraining order, or co-opting the local party infrastructure to push an agenda that the national-level party leadership doesn't approve of.

I'll be the first to admit that the last one can definitely cut both ways, of course, but I think it would have prevented a lot of unpleasantness if the GOP had been in a position to forbid their local branches from founding their own militias.

[Raw Shark]

I wasn't thinking of voting in primaries so much as people going to local party meetings with intent to leak confidential information, trying to use the fact that the party's internal rules say meetings open to all registered members as an end-run around a restraining order, or co-opting the local party infrastructure to push an agenda that the national-level party leadership doesn't approve of.

Well, the sorts of meetings that are open to all registered members don't typically bandy about the sort of information they would consider confidential because they are well aware of how open to the general public they actually are. A restraining order is a restraining order, it supercedes invitations to social events, the parties involved have to stay a specified distance apart. As for co-opting the agenda in a way the RNC might frown at, I think we saw how possible that is six years ago.

I'll be the first to admit that the last one can definitely cut both ways, of course, but I think it would have prevented a lot of unpleasantness if the GOP had been in a position to forbid their local branches from founding their own militias.

That's another issue entirely than loosey-goosey voter registration - The local branches founding militias were, as far as I know, composed of people who consider themselves Republicans, not nefarious liberal infiltrators, unless you believe the "False Flag / Antifa did the Jan 6th violence" narrative popular with the true moonbats.

[LadyTevar]

The one that I think needs to Go Away is the Caucus. Especially the Iowa Caucus

Due to the current Media Circus surrounding US Elections, the Iowa Caucus gets heavy attention as it is one of the first to nominate candidates. This is starting to cause some blowback however.
From Wiki:

Public focus has been increasingly drawn to the Iowa caucus procedure. Public confidence in the integrity of the caucus system was heavily undermined after the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus in which numerous irregularities were revealed, including disputed caucus totals following the disastrous initial use of a new smartphone app developed for the caucus, and a failure to publish official results for nearly a week.

Many individuals and groups argue that the caucus process inherently suppresses the vote of working-class people who are not able to take several hours away from work or caring for family to go caucus. There are also concerns that Iowa's racial demographics, nearly 93% white, are not reflective of the country's general ethnic makeup and therefore make it an inappropriate state to hold such a critical position in America's election system.

To clarify for the non-Americans -- In Iowa you and your neighbors go into a meeting room where you spend the next several hours talking up your choice for nomination, and try to convert as many of your neighbors as possible to your way of thinking. Which to me means the biggest, loudest bully in the neighborhood yells down everyone til they vote his way.

The local caucuses' vote is tallied up and the top three nominations are the ones the Media Circus now dubs "The Anointed Ones", and in ONE DAY we go from 10 possible candidates for Democrat Ticket we're now down to THREE, with the other 49 states losing the chance to "anoint" their own choices. It's a miracle Obama survived this as a black man. I very much doubt a future POC candidate would.

[Gandalf]

They could probably save a lot of time and effort by having it all sorted at the convention. Each state sends its delegates, and they just vote freely behind closed door. It'll take a few rounds, and eventually a new candidate emerges for the party. But given the US system, almost anything could be an improvement.

It would also make the conventions less wanky.