Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

I don't really foresee any Democrat coming out of Florida as a statewide official to really be as left as I'd like. Same with Sinema in AZ. I get why she's making these decisions and how she's rebranded herself, and I want her to run (now or in 18) because I think she can win, but, yeah.

Yeah and realistically if Democrats were in the majority they'd probably toe the party line pretty closely. Yes playing politics is annoying but whatever helps them win.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Okay poligaf. Tell me how you increase turnout in a midterm. 1994, 2006, 2010 & 2014 were blowout for each side & turnout was lower than the presidential election.

Turnout: 38.8, 37.1, 37.8, 36.4 respectively. Highest was 1966 with 48.4

Do you think we should abolish midterms and slam everything(Gov, legislatures, senate terms switched from 6 to 4 year terms, 4 year house terms instead of 2 etc) into a presidential year?


Just curious....because I dont see how one can do it.

 

[Teggy]

Okay poligaf. Tell me how you increase turnout in a midterm. 1994, 2006, 2010 & 2014 were blowout for each side & turnout was lower than the presidential election.

Turnout: 38.8, 37.1, 37.8, 36.4 respectively. Highest was 1966 with 48.4

Do you think we should abolish midterms and slam everything(Gov, legislatures, senate terms switched from 6 to 4 year terms, 4 year house terms instead of 2 etc) into a presidential year?


Just curious....because I dont see how one can do it.

Making Election Day a federal holiday wouldn't hurt.

 

[Vyroxis]

Making Election Day a federal holiday wouldn't hurt.

Not everyone gets federal holidays off you know. Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, and Easter are the ones MOST get off. And lots of people don't even get all of those.

 

[Manmademan]

Not everyone gets federal holidays off you know. Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, and Easter are the ones MOST get off. And lots of people don't even get all of those.

move it to saturday. easier solution. even then though I don't think you'd see more than a marginal increase. the actual problem is joe sixpack having no idea how congress works and not really caring.

State house/representative races are even worse.

 

[AntoneM]

Not everyone gets federal holidays off you know. Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, and Easter are the ones MOST get off. And lots of people don't even get all of those.

Easter isn't a federal holiday. I thought most got Memorial day off also.

 

[Vyroxis]

Easter isn't a federal holiday. I thought most got Memorial day off also.

I never said it was one, I just listed the holidays most people get off by default.

And yes, memorial day also. Slipped my mind somehow.

 

[Tamanon]

I think some of you are forgetting how many people still have to work during holidays/weekends, especially the lower class.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I think some of you are forgetting how many people still have to work during holidays/weekends, especially the lower class.

We'd still miss some people, but the numbers would be much better.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We'd still miss some people, but the numbers would be much better.

I doubt it. Turn out isn't low because people can't vote. Its because they don't want to

 

[JesseEwiak]

Allow online voting, move gubernatorial terms where we can to coincide w/ Presidential elections, make Election Day a holiday, and make it a 3-day process.

 

[Fenderputty]

Has there been any polling done on reasons why people don't vote?

 

[Teggy]

I think some of you are forgetting how many people still have to work during holidays/weekends, especially the lower class.

"Wouldn't hurt" doesn't mean "will guarantee 100% turnout".

 

[dabig2]

I think some of you are forgetting how many people still have to work during holidays/weekends, especially the lower class.

Obviously not everyone can be accommodated. But the status quo is bad and undemocratic and anything to help more people find time to vote is a good one.

But as said above, the real problem is that most people have no idea of how the hell Congress works. This is why we continue seeing people hate on Congress but love their Congressman. I also think a significant amount of people believe the President position is some sort of dictatorship (ahem), and that all those "boring" Congressional races don't mean much. This is evidenced by how many people blame/praise the President when it comes to manners like budgets and such or anything dealing with the US's purse strings.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Okay poligaf. Tell me how you increase turnout in a midterm. 1994, 2006, 2010 & 2014 were blowout for each side & turnout was lower than the presidential election.

Turnout: 38.8, 37.1, 37.8, 36.4 respectively. Highest was 1966 with 48.4

Do you think we should abolish midterms and slam everything(Gov, legislatures, senate terms switched from 6 to 4 year terms, 4 year house terms instead of 2 etc) into a presidential year?


Just curious....because I dont see how one can do it.

If you're going to make the Senate and House both have four year terms then I don't see much purpose in having both a Senate and House tbh.

I don't know how to address this. The problem is the American public simply doesn't care about non-presidential elections.

 

[AntoneM]

I never said it was one, I just listed the holidays most people get off by default.

And yes, memorial day also. Slipped my mind somehow.

Well, you sure fooled me. *shrug*

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well then Aaron clearly you care. So how did you get to the point of caring about voting? Maybe your answer can unlock a way to get most of America to want to vote.

Its appalling that we dont have 80% voting age turnout.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Obviously not everyone can be accommodated. But the status quo is bad and undemocratic and anything to help more people find time to vote is a good one.

But as said above, the real problem is that most people have no idea of how the hell Congress works. This is why we continue seeing people hate on Congress but love their Congressman. I also think a significant amount of people believe the President position is some sort of dictatorship (ahem), and that all those "boring" Congressional races don't mean much. This is evidenced by how many people blame/praise the President when it comes to manners like budgets and such or anything dealing with the US's purse strings.

How does one not know how congress works when they were taught in the 5th grade of a judicial, executive and legislative branch?

 

[Teggy]

It would also help if we could communicate the importance of voting in particular elections . For example, since a lot of places have been gerrymandered within an inch of their life, people might feel discouraged about voting in a house election even though the senate election might be winnable for their party.

 

[speculawyer]

Trying to decide if that is thread-worthy or not. I think it's just something to file away for when someone says both parties are the same. It would probably produce no novel conversation in it's own thread as the territory has been covered ad nauseam.

I thought about it but there are already too many bash on stupid GOPer threads. Too much piling on. But man . . . the GOP sure makes it easy for the Daily Show writers.

 

[Ecotic]

Do you think we should abolish midterms and slam everything(Gov, legislatures, senate terms switched from 6 to 4 year terms, 4 year house terms instead of 2 etc) into a presidential year?

Yes, that's exactly what you do. There's a substantial proportion of Americans who don't understand or comprehend what midterms are. They think they are preliminary results, not binding, or are not finalized until the real election year when the President is decided. I've phone banked in two midterm elections, and many people thought midterms are like a beauty pageant to decide whose favored to win the actual election in two years. I heard a hundred different variations, but a lot of people just thought they weren't 'real' elections.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I doubt it. Turn out isn't low because people can't vote. Its because they don't want to

Yeah, but not wanting to isn't a decision made in a vacuum. Make it on Saturday, and it's an "eh, might as well vote" decision. Have it on Tuesday, and it becomes "is it worth taking time off work to do this," which is a whole 'nother question.

 

[Chichikov]

I guess Bakunin was on it after all, though I feel like I want to change the list anytime I make one and stop myself, there was one I wanted to add just now looking at this but I can't remember what it was:

I think all but the first one and Road To Serfdom are public domain or made available on Mises for free.

 

[dabig2]

How does one not know how congress works when they were taught in the 5th grade of a judicial, executive and legislative branch?

I'm going to assume this is a rhetorical question cause yeah, it's not even a problem just for the average layperson who might have slept through Civics class. We have sitting politicians who clearly have no idea of how our government system works and all its checks and balances and specific duties.

 

[NobleXenon]

I wonder if a state could enact a mandatory voting tax. Like, If you don't vote, that is a hundred dollar tax penalty; if you do, it's a twenty-five dollar tax credit.

 

[Diablos]

I wonder if a state could enact a mandatory voting tax. Like, If you don't vote, that is a hundred dollar tax penalty; if you do, it's a twenty-five dollar tax credit.

SCOTUS would strike that shit down in a heartbeat

Also, Scott Walker probably won't win now that Bush is running. Not to mention his actions of late aren't doing him any favors to begin with

I'm counting Walker and Christie out at this point for actually getting the nom. Never thought I'd say it. All bets are on Bush.

 

[NeoXChaos]

SCOTUS would strike that shit down in a heartbeat

Also, Scott Walker probably won't win now that Bush is running. Not to mention his actions of late aren't doing him any favors to begin with

I'm counting Walker and Christie out at this point for actually getting the nom. Never thought I'd say it. All bets are on Bush.

Ive been saying it all along my friend. We think alike O.O. Jeb will be the nominee.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ive been saying it all along my friend. We think alike O.O. Jeb will be the nominee.

lolololololololololol

 

[NobleXenon]

SCOTUS would strike that shit down in a heartbeat

Also, Scott Walker probably won't win now that Bush is running. Not to mention his actions of late aren't doing him any favors to begin with

I'm counting Walker and Christie out at this point for actually getting the nom. Never thought I'd say it. All bets are on Bush.

Then that means Obama needs to do some court packing. Just make the number of supreme court justices equal to that of the number of circuit court of appeals. Trolololol.

 

[Jooney]

Dhs one week extension approved.

Dat governance.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Ive been saying it all along my friend. We think alike O.O. Jeb will be the nominee.

That's because you're the same person in two different bodies.

 

[Ecotic]

When you think of the dynamic nature of primaries, a lot hinges on whether Bush's chief credible competitor (not someone like Huckabee) wins Iowa, doubly so if that person can win New Hampshire and South Carolina (or 2 out of 3). Bush would probably fare well on Super Tuesday if it featured northeastern States or California and its neighbors, if he hasn't completely lost by knockout in the first round.

 

[Averon]

Dhs one week extension approved.

Dat governance.

What do they think a one week extension will do? What's the point?

 

[benjipwns]

A 3.5 is between a B+ and A- average, which I doubt you could sleep through with the roughly 4-6 hours of reading per day.

Am I out of touch or is Berkeley that much harder than most schools?

lol more like half an hour of skimming

Essays are best written in a state of panic at 3 in the morning the day of, IMO.

Best essays are written one hour per five pages in the hours before they're due.

 

[Trouble]

What do they think a one week extension will do? What's the point?

Hopefully, give enough time to whip the needed votes on the R side for a clean bill. The earlier vote was basically to show that the loonies of the party were ready to drive right off the cliff.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

lol more like half an hour of skimming


Best essays are written one hour per five pages in the hours before they're due.

Don't forget they have to be done at the coffee shop, the printer must break 5 times and you have to be 5 minutes late to class and you slyly try to enter and pretend you were there early

 

[B-Dubs]

lol more like half an hour of skimming


Best essays are written one hour per five pages in the hours before they're due.

You're a man after my own heart benji.

 

[benjipwns]

Okay poligaf. Tell me how you increase turnout in a midterm. 1994, 2006, 2010 & 2014 were blowout for each side & turnout was lower than the presidential election.

Turnout: 38.8, 37.1, 37.8, 36.4 respectively. Highest was 1966 with 48.4

Do you think we should abolish midterms and slam everything(Gov, legislatures, senate terms switched from 6 to 4 year terms, 4 year house terms instead of 2 etc) into a presidential year?


Just curious....because I dont see how one can do it.

2012: 54.9%
2008: 57.1%
2004: 55.7%
2000: 50.3%
1996: 49.0%
1992: 55.2%
1988: 50.3%
1984: 53.3%
1980: 52.8%
1976: 53.6%
1972: 55.1%
1968: 60.7%
1964: 61.4%
1960: 62.8%

So that means 31.3% of eligible voters voted for Reagan in his 1984 landslide. And 23.7% of eligible voters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

And that's just the Presidential vote, few people keep voting all the way down ballot.

You're not going to get mid 1960's numbers because of the move from 21 to 18 alone.

 

[adamsappel]

I'd be happy with mail-in voting and a tax rebate for voting.

What do they think a one week extension will do? What's the point?

They wanted to go home for the weekend.

 

[Cat]

I think elections would have a better turnout if election day were a holiday and/or mail-in ballots.

I guess on a smaller scale, just you know, do what you can to communicate to others about its significance, be that a casual conversation, a blog post, a forum post, etc.

It won't result in a 100% turnout, but it'll do more than nothing.

 

[benjipwns]

King v. Burwell Isn’t About Obamacare: It’s all about states’ rights—but the plaintiffs would rather you didn’t know that.

King v. Burwell—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court will hear on March 4th—is about more than health care. Court watchers have finally begun to realize that the case is also all about states’ rights. And while the challengers have tried to submerge this issue—because it dramatically undermines their case—its centrality to King has become undeniable.

...

The case is about federalism—the role of states in our national democracy. The reason the challengers don’t want anyone to realize that is because the very text-oriented justices to whom they are appealing are the exact same justices who have consistently interpreted federal laws to protect states’ rights. And the challengers would read the ACA in the opposite way—as having devastating implications for the states.

The challengers’ interpretation turns Congress’s entire philosophy of states’ rights in the ACA upside down. Congress designed the exchanges to be state-deferential—to give the states a choice. But under the state-penalizing reading that challengers urge, the ACA—a statute that uses the phrase “state flexibility” five times—would be the most draconian modern statute ever enacted by the U.S. Congress that included a role for the states. What’s more, if interpreted as the challengers hope, the ACA would have been debated, enacted and implemented for two whole years under intense public scrutiny, including the scrutiny trained on it during the last major constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court in 2012, without anyone—no state, congressman or blogger—noticing these consequences or objecting to them.

...

Yes, protection of states’ rights is most often associated with the conservative movement. But it shouldn’t matter that the Court’s federalism rules support the government this time around. If these states’ rights rules are real and objective rules of law, they should apply regardless of whose side they happen to serve.

The Supreme Court, led by its conservatives, has spent the past four decades developing a set of legal rules to protect states from federal imposition. Those rules require Congress to provide unmistakably clear notice in the text of a statute before the Court will read a statute to intrude on the states. As read by the challengers, the ACA would completely violate these Court doctrines.

In fact, these very same state-protective rules were used by those who challenged the ACA in 2012—as well as by seven Justices in that case when they concluded the ACA’s Medicaid expansion was impermissibly coercive on the states. It is thus remarkable that the King challengers—formerly staunch federalists—have suddenly adopted an interpretation of the law diametrically at odds with these protections. They do not mention these flagship cases in their briefs, even though the consequences that their reading would impose on the states are far more intrusive—and come with no explicit warning in the statute—than those at issue in Medicaid expansion.

...

Finally, the King challengers fail to acknowledge that the ACA has a provision that expressly lays out the consequences to states of not operating their own exchanges—a provision that, unlike the buried tax provision directed to individuals on which challengers rely, couldn’t be more clearly signposted to give the requisite notice to the states. That provision is entitled “Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements,” and it spells out what happens if states do not operate their own exchanges. The penalty the challengers would foist on the states—the loss of the subsidies and drastic consequences that would go with it—does not appear there, where it should appear if it existed.

Those who take the government’s side in this case will inevitably be called “fair weather federalists,” even though the state attorneys general and academics making these arguments to the Court espoused these same federalist principles long before the ACA existed. The real fair-weather federalists are those who have spent decades working to entrench these doctrinal protections for the states, who fought for them successfully in the 2012 case, and who now—in their zeal to destroy the ACA—are content to push those doctrines under the rug this time around. These King supporters are willing to let their contrived reading of the ACA set up what appears to be the greatest federalism trap for state governments in history. If the Court’s federalism doctrines stand for anything, they will not stand for this.

A critic:

“That question has no answer, [Gluck] argues: Whatever words Congress may have used in [the ACA], it could not have intended that senseless outcome.”

What is a jurist’s proper response when presented with a senseless law? The preceding paragraph is a repurposing of Justice Elena Kagan’s answer, in a 2014 decision called Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community that involved a statute called the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Here’s the Kagan quote in context (citations omitted):

Michigan . . . urges us to adopt a “holistic method” of interpreting IGRA that would allow a State to sue a tribe for illegal gaming off, no less than on, Indian lands. Michigan asks here that we consider “IGRA’s text and structure as a whole.” But (with one briefly raised exception) Michigan fails to identify any specific textual or structural features of the statute to support its proposed result. Rather, Michigan highlights a (purported) anomaly of the statute as written: that it enables a State to sue a tribe for illegal gaming inside, but not outside, Indian country. “[W]hy,” Michigan queries, “would Congress authorize a state to obtain a federal injunction against illegal tribal gaming on Indian lands, but not on lands subject to the state’s own sovereign jurisdiction?” That question has no answer, Michigan argues: Whatever words Congress may have used in IGRA, it could not have intended that senseless outcome.

But this Court does not revise legislation, as Michigan proposes, just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address. Truth be told, such anomalies often arise from statutes, if for no other reason than that Congress typically legislates by parts—addressing one thing without examining all others that might merit comparable treatment. Rejecting a similar argument that a statutory anomaly (between property and non-property taxes) made “not a whit of sense,” we explained in one recent case that “Congress wrote the statute it wrote”—meaning, a statute going so far and no further. The same could be said of IGRA’s abrogation of tribal immunity for gaming “on Indian lands.” This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that (in Michigan’s words) Congress “must have intended” something broader.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'd be happy with mail-in voting and a tax rebate for voting.



They wanted to go home for the weekend.

I don't under any circumstances want any money associated with voting, its a horrible idea.

I would like to move to mail-in/internet voting though. I can't think of any reasons to be against it if we can protect against fraud (which of course we can)

King v. Burwell Isn’t About Obamacare: It’s all about states’ rights—but the plaintiffs would rather you didn’t know that.


A critic:

I've seen this a bunch (I think might have posted a similar argument) it seems to be an argument directly appealing to roberts and Kennedy after reading their opposition to medicaid expansion.

Personally I agree with the pragmatic angle of that argument even though I disagree with the concept of this doctrine of coercive federalism being unconstitutional. I think congress should have free reign to spend federal money. If i'm to be consistent I have to oppose it in the medicare decision and here. I believe the 10th amendment is relatively useless and shouldn't really be the basis for any opinions, its a truism and not really an amendment.

 

[Oblivion]

You know, I can understand people not really understanding what congress does or the importance of congressional elections, and that's why midterms have such low turnout. But that doesn't explain why congressional votes are higher in presidential elections.

 

[benjipwns]

Trickle down voting.

 

[B-Dubs]

You know, I can understand people not really understanding what congress does or the importance of congressional elections, and that's why midterms have such low turnout. But that doesn't explain why congressional votes are higher in presidential elections.

It's because they're already out voting anyway so they might as well.

 

[Oblivion]

It's because they're already out voting anyway so they might as well.

I'm sure that's one reason. But you would think by doing so (even if it just happens to be because of convenience), that would show they have enough understanding to realize how important congressional races are.

Also, I've never actually voted (not a citizen), but can you vote for president and congress at the same time at the same precinct?

 

[benjipwns]

You get one ballot with every office from Dog Catcher to President along with bonds, mills, initiatives, referenda, etc.

 

[benjipwns]

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm sure that's one reason. But you would think by doing so (even if it just happens to be because of convenience), that would show they have enough understanding to realize how important congressional races are.

Also, I've never actually voted (not a citizen), but can you vote for president and congress at the same time at the same precinct?

yeah you get one ballot every election. it has everything

 

[Oblivion]

You get one ballot with every office from Dog Catcher to President along with bonds, mills, initiatives, referenda, etc.

yeah you get one ballot every election. it has everything

Okay, nevermind. Makes way more sense now.