UO Thursday 2/21

mrosek91

I haven't seen this go up yet.
Let's hear 'em ladies.

(edited because I realized I did my own pet peeve and mixed up here/hear. I need more caffeine and/or sleep than this.)

mrosek91

Discussion of the 2020 elections should be banned until 2 months before the first primary. Additionally, candidates should not be allowed to announce that they are running until then .

Lotus_2008

Face and neck tattoos are awful and trashy. Yet, it seems like I am starting to see them more often. WHY?

moon1417

@lotus_2008 AMEN sister!

olivemomma

So many opinions regarding the election...

I think there needs to be a cap on how many people can run per year in any given party, if not, you can end up with a nominee who actually received a very small percentage of their parties vote and not necessarily (and very likely not) the best nominee.

The electoral college needs to go away - the idea that you can win the popular vote and not win the office is archaic. 

I wish as a country we could try to consider a middle man/woman candidate and not someone too far left or far right - we need someone who can bring this dang country together and I wish one of the parties would have the balls to do it - put someone up who works across the aisle and has a proven track record of not voting strictly across party lines.

And as sad as it is (and I do wish this wasn’t the case), but voting for a third party candidate is a huge waste of your vote - you are really just voting for whoever wins if that’s the route you take. I know so many people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton in 2016 - either because she was a Clinton, she was a woman, bangahzi, emails, or whatever else. Yet they all HATED Trump and were terrified at the thought of him being president, yet they voted third party! I wanted to scream at all of them that they voted for Trump anyhow.

okay that’s it for now...

Beauxbaton

@olivemama I agree with you for the most part. Although I do think people should vote for who they genuinely agree with. I wish people would put aside their personal feelings about the person's personality and vote for the person who they fall in line with. But I too had several friends who just couldn't bare (bear? what's the correct spelling here?) the thought of voting for Clinton so they voted for Johnson. That said, I live in Kansas where with the electoral college in place it will never win the Dem vote. So it does feel like our votes don't count. I still vote though. And I vote in the local elections. So there's that 

olivemomma

@Beauxbaton I really wish we could all vote for who we agreed with the most and our political system was designed to support that - it will just never be the case with our 2 party system and electoral college. I also live in a state that goes red well before the polls even close. I have lived in 3 different swing states since being eligible to vote (Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio). I’ve always been so excited to vote in a swing state And truly feel that my vote matters and counts. It’s so disheartening to feel your vote doesn’t matter (I still vote regardless). I think this is true for any state that always goes a certain way regardless of red/blue - how exciting would it be for all of the voters in every state to feel their vote mattered, weather you are a republican in New York or a democrat in Texas every vote should be weighted equally. I think it would be so exciting to see what the turnout would be if that was ever the case. 

BigBadWolf12

@Beaubaxton "bear" in that sense.  "bear a hardship" or "bear a burden".  Bare is without clothing

WinchesterGirl

I 100% agree on a true "middle of the road" candidate. I think the American public as a whole doesn't swing as far out as either party, and a truly moderate candidate would probably sweep the whole thing. I technically am Republican, and I have several Democrat friends and we agree on 90% of the conversations we have about politics. If the people can come to a middle ground, why can't the politicians who are PAID to do that? 

For my own UO, I think bananas are gross. Real, fake, in any form, bananas gross me out!

caz_mama

If we want to move away from a two party system, more people should consider voting for a third party candidate. If a third party candidate ever hit 5% of the vote in the presidential election, that party would be granted public campaign funds for the next presidential election. Lack of funding is a large barrier for third party candidates. Hitting the 5% threshold would also increase the chance of a third party candidate getting screen time during major debates. So a vote for a third party may not directly impact the current election but it could make a big difference for future elections. 

suzycupcake

If we got rid of the electoral college system, one of the larger states could carry the election unfairly every single time. 

grangerhp37

I feel like most things are decided on a state level, but when the President represents the entire country the vote of each individual American should be weighted equally. So it shouldn’t be about which states are “swing” states or how one state could have more of an impact because it has more people. A larger state should control more of the votes because more Americans are living there. The way it is now, your vote is weighted less/more depending on what state you live in, which I agree needs to change. 

suzycupcake

The system does work if everyone votes. In the primaries, candidates are selected by popular vote. They must meet a certain threshold to be given delegates.

However, in 2016, only something like 28% of people went to the polls!!! Smdh. 

And then in the last presidential election, a record high of voter turnout was set but do you know how many people voted? Wait for it. Wait for it. Like 58%. That means 40% of the country didn’t vote. 

In the the most recent midterm elections to determine congressional seats, only 40% of people voted.

To add icing to all of this cake, turnout is even lower for odd year and local elections. 

Your vote does count and electoral delegates will vote the way the people vote. If barely anyone votes, we end up with the shit show we did this last general election. A Narcissist is our commander in chief because people don’t vote. My two cents. 

olivemomma

But one could argue that the election has been unfair in 50% of our elections from 2000 on. Even in 2008 Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the EC. It’s literally a small handful of states that determine who wins the presidency every single year - why does someone’s vote in ohio count for more than someone’s vote in California? Why does a farmers vote in rural Pennsylvania carry more weight that a college students in NYC? Once a certain amount of Dems turn out in a large blue state, where is the motivation for the rest of them when they know they will take the state anyway? Millions of votes in California in 2016 could have been tossed out and it would have made zero difference. And why would conservative voters turn out there in mass when they know they won’t take the state? Same is true for any historically true red state. One could argue it’s our patriotic duty to vote, however, many adults don’t abide by that. In fact, roughly 40% of voters don’t turn out - and that’s on a high turnout year. Imagine if we could increase the turnout even by 10-15%? 

Edited to say several Comments were added while I posted this that have some of the same data so sorry for duplication! But even if everyone votes the EC still does not work - it still weights votes differently. You can win just the right number of states by the smallest of margins and lose the popular vote by a mile and still win the Presidency. Nothing about that seems right.

EmilyA724

Turn out is low for many reasons but two of the main reasons is because people feel like their vote doesn't matter. If one person/one vote was actually a thing, people would feel as their vote mattered more. The second reason is voter suppression, this needs to be fixed, but the electoral college doesn't protect that. Also, you can't say the electoral college will vote the way the people vote when they vote differently than the popular vote. We are the only democracy that has the system we have and when tried to set it up in other countries, it failed. We set up our system as a way to limit voices. The founding fathers never wanted every person to have a voice and that is still apparent. The fact that in NY countless votes don't matter because it is so blue or in Alabama that is so red. The president is supposed to be a president for all people equally so each person should have an equal vote. It shouldn't matter what state you live in or how populated it is. If the majority of Americans want a president, then they should have a president that represents the majority.

zamoraspin

@mrosek91 I'd be down for a shorter primary season for sure. I feel like there is so much wasted energy and money in politics. 

On the electoral college - I think it's a good idea that has demonstrated its shortcomings in several of the presidential elections during my lifetime. One interesting solution some have talked about is rank order voting -  you vote for as many candidates as you want by ranking them in order. It's complicated to explain but I think it would possibly solve the partisanship problems because candidates would need to appeal to, or at least not alienate, a broader range of people. In reality I think the majority of Americans are more middle in their politics than what is currently reflected. 

My UO - I think tipping in the US should be eliminated and restaurants should just charge a sufficient amount for their food so they can pay people fair wages without tipping. Also, a further gripe, I especially want to see eateries do away with the thing where you have to tip before you receive any service. You know the thing where you order, pay, and then someone walks your food to your table? I appreciate these folks should be tipped something, but I don't know what to tip you before you even do anything. Please just charge me a sufficient amount for the food. 

suzycupcake

That all makes sense to me but then...

Say we do it by popular vote, does that mean we get rid of primaries too? Going back to primaries for a second, that is by popular vote but the turnout is so low. 28%. That literally decides which candidates the majority of people want to vote for, for President in the general election. No electoral votes are considered. Every person has a say. Explain to me why that’s not noticed. 

Here is what I mean, if primaries is by popular vote and 100% of people voted, the top two candidates who win by that same popular (majority) vote, go onto the general election. Those two candidates then are voted on by the delegates and the delegates do vote for what the people want based on general election votes, but again, the two candidates were already selected by the popular vote in the primaries. 

Going further into talking about how many delegates are given to each state (not forgetting the fact that the majority voted for those two candidates), why should Wyoming, who has like 500K people have an equal delegate count to California, who has 39M people living there? 

I understand and there is gerrymandering and all kinds of other things going on that complicates the system. 

@olivemomma You mention California. In 2016, a high turnout happened which was amazing. Some reports say 75% and some say 61%. We can go with the 75% meaning there was still 25% of that $39M people and some change who didn’t vote. Hillary won by only 4M something votes. That 25% who didn’t vote accounts for almost 10M more votes. Who knows how many are blue or red or another party color. ETA: that’s the equivalent of the population of 20 Wyomings.  /shrug 

Avrilmai

@suzycupcake not all states have open primaries, so it is not representative of the entire population of the state.  for example, if people are registered as independents they may have no say because they chose to not be affiliated with a particular party.  

grangerhp37

suzycupcake said:

Going further into talking about how many delegates are given to each state (not forgetting the fact that the majority voted for those two candidates), why should Wyoming, who has like 500K people have an equal delegate count to California, who has 39M people living there?

I agree that everyone has a say in the primaries, unless you live in a state like Maryland where you can only vote for the party you are registered for so if registered independent can’t vote in the primaries... but that’s just giving everyone a say of the candidates on whichever side they are voting on. Once it’s down to the top candidate from each party, I still think each individual person’s vote should count the same as the next, even if we assume they are going to vote for the same party they voted for in the primary (not necessarily true).

Also, my question is about the quoted - I think that’s exactly the issue with the electoral college. No one is claiming each state should get the same electoral votes - that’s very different than saying the presidency should be decided by popular vote, when every single vote is counted individually and the winner is based on who gets the most overall. Why should an individual vote in one state mean more or less than an individual vote in another state? Anyone voting Republican in CA gets basically no vote when we use the electoral college since they don’t get counted towards anything once their electoral votes go blue. At least some states have broken up their electoral votes based off the popular vote in each state - that’s at least progress in the right direction. The only states where individual votes actually seem to matter are swing states. I agree with pretty much everything else being decided by state, except votes for people that represent the country as a whole.

olivemomma

@suzycupcake - first and foremost, glad you are posting again!

your comment about the 10 million missing votes in California is exactly my point! We don’t know how these people would have voted. Is Californian truly a blue state? Could it be swayed? If we had a 1 person 1 vote mentality where your vote didn’t stop at the state level who knows what would happen in any state. And it would be far more motivating for everyone to get out there and vote! But their votes would all be counted equally, even if it’s 20X the size of Wyoming it would t matter because weather you are in Wyoming, California, etc all votes are a 1:1 ratio.

on the primaries. In theory you are correct, however, primaries take place over a much longer period of time and you can be dealing with multiple candidates. So several candidates often pull out early without ever even making it to the polls in later states. Plus if you are dealing with 10+ candidates it’s  very possible for a particular sub group within a particular party to choose the candidate with an overall small percentage of the vote because it’s being divided between so many candidadates. Say the Democrats in this upcoming election put up 10 candidates, 9 of whom are fairly similar and 1 of whom is VERY far left. That one candidate couldn’t easily win the ‘popular vote’ by capitalizing on the most extreme voters while all of the more moderate voters split their votes between the other 9. Even if everyone votes, they could theoretically win with less than 15% of the popular vote. I think this was pretty evident in the 2016 Republican race where the more extreme candidates fared far better than their opponents. And then we are left with an EC that can easily be skewed in a particular candidates favor even if the majority of the country is in opposition. I do agree that a popular vote puts more power in more populated areas but that’s also putting the power in the people. And honestly on a 1:1 voting ratio it shouldn’t matter where you live as it all balances out.

At at least it seems we can agree we all need some kind of overhaul!

suzycupcake

@Avrilmai It’s easy to change your party preference to be able to vote in a primary election if you’re in a state without an open primary which I’m in one, but California amended and won a battle to keep it semi open for those non affiliated to be invited to vote. Each political party has the option of allowing decline-to-state voters to vote in their Presidential primary. 

For example of what I do. I’m Independent. I registered as Democrat for 2008 and 2012. In 2016, I changed to Republican to vote against Trump. 

Even though primaries are closed, a voter can change his or her party preference before the deadline. I believe that’s the case in any state. All they have to do is re-register to vote. That deadline is so close to the election that voters have enough time to decide who they will vote for, IMO. 

EmilyA724

You might be able to change your party, but you can’t vote in both primaries so it’s not equal to voting in the general election where you’re choosing a candidates between parties. I’m Ohio, my party affiliation is based off who I vote for in the primaries. I go to the polls on primary day, they ask me if I want a republican or Democrat ballot and I choose the preferred candidate within that party.

suzycupcake

dogmomma096 said:

Also, my question is about the quoted - I think that’s exactly the issue with the electoral college. No one is claiming each state should get the same electoral votes - that’s very different than saying the presidency should be decided by popular vote, when every single vote is counted individually and the winner is based on who gets the most overall. Why should an individual vote in one state mean more or less than an individual vote in another state? Anyone voting Republican in CA gets basically no vote when we use the electoral college since they don’t get counted towards anything once their electoral votes go blue. At least some states have broken up their electoral votes based off the popular vote in each state - that’s at least progress in the right direction. The only states where individual votes actually seem to matter are swing states. I agree with pretty much everything else being decided by state, except votes for people that represent the country as a whole.

Okay I see your point in a sense. I equate primaries with popular vote. If in every state, a voter can change their party preference at any time before the voter registration deadline, if 100% of people vote in the primaries and the popular vote decides the top two candidates, then hasn't the majority already decided in the general election? It would seem to me the delegate votes are just a reflection of what the people have already decided.

Hmm. "Anyone voting Republican in CA gets basically no vote when we use the electoral college since they don't get counted towards anything once their electoral votes go blue."

Let me think about that. ... Electoral votes only go blue in the general election if the majority of people vote blue in the primary because in a primary election, a candidate is given delegates directly proportionate to their share of votes in that primary. In states like California, if only 28% of the 39M people vote in a primary, then yea, it's unlikely the pendulum will ever swing the other way. IJS. That makes logical sense to me, but I'm still trying to be persuaded. 

Still thinking though... maybe the people who vote for a third party in the primaries are the ones who really lose out on this whole current system though, more than anyone. I definitely think there is a lot of corruption in political campaigns and elections. We need to take money out of campaigns and set term limits for Congress. 

Eta; Doesn't getting rid of the electoral college mean that a special interest candidate could win with less than a quarter of the nation's votes? Maybe not the case if a cap was put on how many candidates can run for office from each party, but then there's still the money and corruption issue. Ugh. 

suzycupcake

EmilyA724 said:

You might be able to change your party, but you can’t vote in both primaries so it’s not equal to voting in the general election where you’re choosing a candidates between parties. I’m Ohio, my party affiliation is based off who I vote for in the primaries. I go to the polls on primary day, they ask me if I want a republican or Democrat ballot and I choose the preferred candidate within that party.

Why would you want to vote in both primaries? I don't understand. You change your party preference to the person you want to be the President. Maybe we should get rid of primaries too? Just dismantle the whole GD thing! <----thats gosh!  

Eta; My last two sentences was me kidding around fyi. 

suzycupcake

@olivemomma I do agree an overhaul is needed too especially since the entire thing was created by racists when no Black people could even vote until much much later. The whole thing is shady because of that alone, in my eyes. 

I just wish there was a way to get more young people out to vote locally. Local elections are so important! A young man who worked with me previously asked me why it's so important to me to tell people to get out and vote. He said, "Why? Why should I care so much about voting?" I said because that after tax wage you're complaining about, there is a tiny percentage of people getting out to vote (not the majority) deciding what to do with the money in your paycheck every week.

A side note: In California, the last local election turned out only 49%. That's 20M people who didn't vote!  Why wouldn't you want to have a say in that??

It's understandable though. The apathy. There was a time when I felt that way until realizing that my being involved is for my community, not just for me. The welfare of my community is also my welfare. 

Allycat11

Can I just say that I love how this group can discuss politics without name calling and completely bashing another person's character for their beliefs?!? Seriously, awesome! 

My UO compared to many on TB is that I am conservative. I manage to have friends who lean left, right, middle, independent or have no preference at all. 2016 was the first time I voted in the primaries (always have voted in the general election and local ones) because I was strongly opposed to Trump. I think Trump only made it because too many republicans put their hat in the ring and hung on for too long. If only a couple GOOD republican candidates had run against him by the time.primary votes started, I think we would have had a much different outcome. I know very very few people who were happy to vote in 2016. 

Agreed that our political system is so incredibly broken and clearly it is not an easy fix. I wish I had all of the answers but I do not. 

goldfishcraker

I am uneducated in this topic, and therefore  can't say much about the American voting system, but I will say...pleeeeeease, for the sake of the world, in the next election get out and vote! get Trump out of power!

(ETA I should maybe clarify, if you're elegible to vote in the States, get out and vote)

sourlemon

@Allycat11 I'm also conservative, which is why i stay far away from political discussions on the bump. 10 foot pole. Sometimes 100 foot pole! You aren't alone lol. 

mrosek91

@Allycat11 @sourlemon right there with you ladies. As a conservative I try to not discuss politics on the internet.
The point of my post was to say I didn't want to be discussing politics at all (on the internet or off), but DH told me I was being naive, and as soon as you say anything election related the posts will come.

Allycat11

@mrosek91 I keep my political beliefs off of FB 95% of the time because as soon as you say something it can really get people going. One of my main reasons is because I am self employed and rely on the relationships I have built with people. I never want a difference of beliefs to hurt me professionally. 

grangerhp37

I didn’t think this thread was even getting political other than discussing the electoral college and how the election actually works.

EmilyA724

I love debating political and philosophical beliefs. As long as people aren’t being harmful in their comments, I find the discussion fascinating. I love hearing how other people think and their reasoning. I think it’s also really helpful for us to do it in order to grow as people. I lived in a very liberal bubble until I moved to Ohio and it took me a while to adjust because I didn’t even know “normal” people had other beliefs 😂 but people I consider close friends are much more moderate to conservative than I am and I think talking about this stuff and just helped me so much. 

olivemomma

dogmomma096 said:

I didn’t think this thread was even getting political other than discussing the electoral college and how the election actually works.

This. I was attempting to keep my posts as unpolitical as possible while discussing the political process. However, I’m sure you ladies all know where I lean as I do throw some comments in. I’m always up for some grownup conversation on various opinions though if we decide as a bump ever to go there. I do like hearing the opinions of well educated adults who differ from my own. 

suzycupcake

@Allycat11 I agree this has been a very civil discussion. It certainly wasn’t pleasant voting that election. I took far too long standing in that booth because of wanting to vote for a Republican who didn’t end up getting on the ballot. My state doesn’t allow write ins. I bubbled the Democrat right at the last minute because I just can’t stand by Trump as a Christian. My friends who do, we discuss that a lot. 

Question for those saying they are Conservative, does that automatically mean Republican? I only ask because as an Independent, I don’t consider myself Liberal. When it comes to social justice, many of my Republican friends think I’m a bleeding heart Liberal but my beliefs align with the Bible. It says a lot about justice, equality, hypocrisy, helping those in need, etc. But I wholeheartedly believe in hard work and personal responsibility.  Maybe I’m more Libertarian. I don’t really know all the way yet. 

goldfishcraker

My UO...
Ketchup does NOT belong on Mac and cheese or grilled cheese. BLEH!

grangerhp37

@chillycanadian Ooh I love it on Mac n Cheese, especially if the ketchup is cold!! Not like mixed in but just some on top. Never heard of it on grilled cheese though.

mrosek91

@Allycat11 I don't have Facebook, Twitter, or any of the others. The Bump is my only "social network" and as I'm still new here, I'm learning what I should and shouldn't be posting.
@dogmomma096 you're right it wasn't getting politcal, I'm just overly sensitive to anything politics adjacent, because I feel like we are always inundated with it. There was no break after 2016 before everyone was analysing and predicting 2018. And now 2018 is just over and the 2020 talk is already well underway. There was a while there were I actually banned talk of Trump or Clinton at our table whenever we were having a family meal, because it's just too much.
@EmilyA724 I agree with you in theory, and I'm happy to discuss my beliefs in person with anyone who seems truely curious, but I'm scared of the internet, and how people on it take and twist things.
@suzycupcake I am registered as a republican because the majority of my positions aligned with what the rebuplican party stood for when I registered to vote. (As much as I had positions at 18) However, I am pretty embarrassed by my party right now. There are certain positions that I hold for religious reasons and those aren't going to change. But for others I try and read/listen to opinions from both sides and make an informed decision, which is getting harder and harder to do with all the media becoming more polorized. 

olivemomma

@chillycanadian I truly hope that is actually a popular opinion as that sound a disgusting.

@suzycupcake I want to say It is so refreshing to hear of someone who uses the Bible as a reason to support social equality. In my adult years I have separated myself from religion and a large part of that is because I feel the Bible and religion are largely used as a scapegoat against social equality from those who are uncomfortable with certain lifestyles. Props to you.

mrosek91

@chillycanadian @olivemomma Mac and Cheese and grilled cheese are the only things ketchup is good on!

suzycupcake

@mrosek91 Does Conservative mean Republican to you? People say there is a left, middle, and right to every party. But like, what does that even mean? There are extremes that I can see, but it's hard to determine how say a moderate Republican differs from a more Conservative, and so on and so forth.

Religious reasons and certain positions not changing. Totally get that. I agree that it's so difficult to read/listen to both sides. Trying to trace agendas of candidates, money, history of votes/things said publicly, not to mention doing all of that for the issues too, every article to see who wrote it and what their agenda is, etc. etc. So exhausting! 

sourlemon

I agree that this thread has stayed nice but I've seen politics get ugly fast. I hate that people struggle to have grown up conversations when they disagree. Republicans are easy targets right now. 

Yes, personally I'm a republican. That doesn't mean I agree with everything the party is doing right now.  And it certainly doesn't mean that I am all the nasty things many people call Republicans right now.   

Ketchup does not belong anywhere near Mac n cheese or grilled cheese. 

My UO: Dogs are better than cats. However I have a very cat like dog which would be the best of both worlds except that she isn't a fan of kids being near her.