Democratic caucuses and primaries

[d4m10n]

Team OMB is going to have to make up their minds: Do we suspend elections, or not?

I'm not sure what "OMB" means but if we are to continue being the sort of nation that practices democracy and features orderly transfers of power, we have rather little choice in the matter (apart from the technicalities of how voting is to be accomplished). Once you give a chief executive the power to suspend elections in his party's favor, he tends to exercise that prerogative going forward.

 

[theprestige]

We will see steps to fix this in states not currently in the business of voter suppression.

In other states, not so much.

What this would mean is that a Trump win in November would be more likely than it already is to include a staggering loss in the popular vote.

In that case, it seems like suspending the elections until all the states can be brought into compliance would be the right solution.

 

[theprestige]

Now that is a good question, but it is irrelevant to my original point, which was pointing out your original comment was a straw man, which I see you now concede with your above highlighted comment.

Congratulations on winning possibly the most inconsequential slapfight I've seen all month. I'd award you an Internet, but in this time of coronavirus I confess I'm hoarding them.

There's a huge distinction between saying "Trump must put the country on lockdown" and "Trump must therefore put the election on hold", and you presenting the OMB people as being inconsistent between the two was merely you using a disingenuous straw man, as I said.

Suspending scheduled elections is probably the most country-on-lockdown thing I can think of.

However, I don't want to simply dismiss your question with that comment. Yes, I think most OMB people would be fine if the president ordered all states to convert to mail-in or online voting and released federal funds to support this.

And what's your contingency plan for the states that can't or won't convert in time?

I now have a question for you: Do you think Trump will actually do this?

I don't.

But then, I also think it would be a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons ranging from it's probably not necessary, to it should be left up to the states to decide necessity at their level, to it would open up a ridiculous can of worms that nobody really wants to see opened if there's any other option.

If you think it would be a good idea, I'd like to learn your reasons. I'd also like to learn how you'd address the can of worms. The question of what to do if/when some states aren't in compliance at election time, for example.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure what "OMB" means

It's the Office of Management and Budget. It's a department of the Executive Office of the President that produces budgets and oversees program quality in the Executive branch of the government. But that's not important right now.

- Frank Drebin, probably

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus and and people having Covid-19 is still a problem in November, then the US is in deep, deep trouble.

We're 0.02% of the way into this.

People cannot wrap their heads around the scope of it.

 

[Cabbage]

Congratulations on winning possibly the most inconsequential slapfight I've seen all month. I'd award you an Internet, but in this time of coronavirus I confess I'm hoarding them.

When you start taunting liberals for holding mutually exclusive positions, it's worth pointing out that the only logical fallacy is your straw man, and the liberals you ignorantly mocked are, in fact, being consistent, which, unfortunately, I can not say for your track record.

Suspending scheduled elections is probably the most country-on-lockdown thing I can think of.

And yet no OMB person has proposed that. How about sticking with the liberals reality, instead of the liberals in your oversimplified fantasy delusion. Think you can manage that for a change?

And what's your contingency plan for the states that can't or won't convert in time?

It's not my job to fix their mistakes. They should start converting now. If they do, I believe they have plenty of time.

I don't.

Neither do I. He has no interest in facilitating a fair and safe election.

But then, I also think it would be a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons ranging from it's probably not necessary, to it should be left up to the states to decide necessity at their level, to it would open up a ridiculous can of worms that nobody really wants to see opened if there's any other option.

If you think it would be a good idea, I'd like to learn your reasons. I'd also like to learn how you'd address the can of worms. The question of what to do if/when some states aren't in compliance at election time, for example.

The only cans of worms I see are states that neglect to make preparations. I've already addressed the fact that it's not my job to fix their mistakes.

 

[Cabbage]

But then, I also think it would be a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons ranging from it's probably not necessary, to it should be left up to the states to decide necessity at their level, to it would open up a ridiculous can of worms that nobody really wants to see opened if there's any other option.

If some states want to suspend their own presidential elections, I would be fine with that.

They can let the remaining states decide the 2020 presidential election: Whoever gets a majority of the remaining electoral votes.

 

[Babbylonian]

There is absolutely no excuse for suspending elections. Delaying some primaries? Maybe.

The bottom line is that every state has the capability to offer absentee ballots. Distributing them to every voter should be easy to arrange in the SEVEN MONTHS between now and the first Tuesday of November.

 

[theprestige]

It's not my job to fix their mistakes.

I would say that it's your job as a citizen and a voter to have an opinion on public policy. It's your job to say what plans you think the government should have in place, and it's your job to judge the government's plans and how well the government carries them out. And it's absolutely your job, if you propose a government policy, to consider the trade-offs and risks, and have some idea of contingency plans if your proposal is implemented but runs into problems.

 

[theprestige]

If some states want to suspend their own presidential elections, I would be fine with that.

They can let the remaining states decide the 2020 presidential election: Whoever gets a majority of the remaining electoral votes.

Sure. But that's a state-level decision. Very different from the federal government suspending elections in non-conforming states.

Earlier you asked me if I thought Trump would suspend elections.

My question to you is, could the country get to a point where he should suspend elections?

There is absolutely no excuse for suspending elections. Delaying some primaries? Maybe.

That's kind of where I'm at.

But I'd say it should be done at the discretion of individual states, not by federal fiat.

The bottom line is that every state has the capability to offer absentee ballots. Distributing them to every voter should be easy to arrange in the SEVEN MONTHS between now and the first Tuesday of November.

In a perfect world, the bottom line is profitable for everyone. It'll be interesting to see how events play out over the next seven months, in the world we actually live in. My hypothesis is that distributing absentee ballots to every voter won't become necessary. On the other hand, what happens if it does become necessary and some states didn't figure it out in time (or simply didn't bother to act when they still had time to act)?

 

[Cabbage]

I would say that it's your job as a citizen and a voter to have an opinion on public policy. It's your job to say what plans you think the government should have in place, and it's your job to judge the government's plans and how well the government carries them out. And it's absolutely your job, if you propose a government policy, to consider the trade-offs and risks, and have some idea of contingency plans if your proposal is implemented but runs into problems.

And if you review my previous posts, you will find that I've already stated my opinion: States should start making plans now for mail in/online voting in November.

Why you persist in pestering me about it beyond that remains a mystery. Deflection?

 

[Cabbage]

Sure. But that's a state-level decision. Very different from the federal government suspending elections in non-conforming states.

Earlier you asked me if I thought Trump would suspend elections.

My question to you is, could the country get to a point where he should suspend elections?

No.





Hell No

 

[theprestige]

And if you review my previous posts, you will find that I've already stated my opinion: States should start making plans now for mail in/online voting in November.

Why you persist in pestering me about it beyond that remains a mystery. Deflection?

I'm sorry it's a mystery. I'm trying to be as clear as I can.

My question is not only, "what should the states be doing now?", but also "what happens if they don't?", and "what plans should be put in place against that contingency?"

How to hold democratic elections during a pandemic is a serious issue. It can't simply be addressed by saying "if the states act now, it won't be a problem."

If this pandemic continues in spread and severity, at some point we are going to have to start talking about what contingency plans the president should (or should not) put into action. My question is, what kinds of contingency plans should we be considering? You say you're answering it, but to me it seems like you're deferring it indefinitely as "not my job."

 

[theprestige]

No.





Hell No

We definitely agree on this, at least as the situation currently stands.

Earlier you asked me if I thought the president would suspend elections because of the pandemic. Now I'll ask you the same question: Do you think the president will find an excuse to suspend the elections?

 

[Cabbage]

I'm sorry it's a mystery. I'm trying to be as clear as I can.

My question is not only, "what should the states be doing now?", but also "what happens if they don't?", and "what plans should be put in place against that contingency?"

How to hold democratic elections during a pandemic is a serious issue. It can't simply be addressed by saying "if the states act now, it won't be a problem."

If this pandemic continues in spread and severity, at some point we are going to have to start talking about what contingency plans the president should (or should not) put into action. My question is, what kinds of contingency plans should we be considering? You say you're answering it, but to me it seems like you're deferring it indefinitely as "not my job."

I ain't no miracle worker. I believe it to be true that "if the states act now, it won't be a problem". Honestly, the problem I have with your presentation is I get the feeling that you seem to think you're scoring points for your position simply by asking questions I have no answer for, yet ignoring the relevant answer I have already provided. You can only "What If" it so far before you come across as trolling, to be honest.

For an analogous (in my mind) example, suppose someones asks how to protect themselves from covid-19. I tell them to limit their exposure, wash hands frequently, avoid touching their face. Then you come along and present me with a case: "This person went to a gathering of 5000 people, shook the hand of everyone they met and then chewed their fingernails and rubbed their eyes (without washing their hands first). What would you tell them to do to protect themselves from covid-19?" And I would tell them it's too goddamn late. Maybe they'll get lucky, but listening to my advice is evidently something they refuse to do, why keep asking me?

If a state is unprepared for the election, they can either manage as best as they can, or sit and watch while the rest of us vote. That's my answer. And their electoral votes should be ignored; 270 is no longer need to win, the winner will be whoever wins a majority of the electoral college of the states that actually participated.

Constitutionally, I don't think there is any requirement for a state to hold an election for the population. They can choose their electoral college representatives however they like. That's an option, but I expect that any state doing that is going to have a hell of a lot of protests (quite possibly violent) if that's the path they choose.

I have given you the most reasonable answer "States should prepare now". Is that unacceptable to you?

I want to add one more thing: I don't just keep saying "It's not my job" to dismiss the question. I mean that sincerely. Specifically, I do not have experience in these matters. I expect that many states have various contingency plans for such occasions. I do not know the details of such plans. I do not know what other plans have been adopted in the past for similar situations. Holding no power of my own to decide these things, it is not important for me to learn these contingency plans (or previous solutions) either. I've got my own life to deal with right now, you know. Like I said, it truly feels to me like you're giving me the "Yeah, but what if.....Yeah, but what if.....Yeah, but what if.....Yeah, but what if.....Yeah, but what if.....Yeah, but what if....." treatment indefinitely as a method of deflection, as if you somehow think you can win the argument simply by demonstrating I do not know the precise position and velocity of every entity in the equation.

And I think it is important for me to call you out on that.

We definitely agree on this, at least as the situation currently stands.

Earlier you asked me if I thought the president would suspend elections because of the pandemic. Now I'll ask you the same question: Do you think the president will find an excuse to suspend the elections?

I think he might float the idea. Since, as has been mentioned repeatedly, states control their own elections, I don't think it will hold much sway, but if he does I think a decent portion of his sycophants might back him up.

Will you stop supporting him if he does?

 

[d4m10n]

There is absolutely no excuse for suspending elections. Delaying some primaries? Maybe.

The bottom line is that every state has the capability to offer absentee ballots. Distributing them to every voter should be easy to arrange in the SEVEN MONTHS between now and the first Tuesday of November.

To be clear, for the primary process (main subject of this thread) to function properly, we're on a timeline of rather fewer than seven months. Democratic National Convention is 108 days away, as of this post. In a two-party system, it is essential that both parties get their **** together reasonably well prior to the general election campaign, otherwise the voters won't be given a clear choice.

(While I'd much prefer a multiparty parliamentary system, two clear choices are far better than one.)

 

[Babbylonian]

To be clear, for the primary process (main subject of this thread) to function properly, we're on a timeline of rather fewer than seven months. Democratic National Convention is 108 days away, as of this post. In a two-party system, it is essential that both parties get their **** together reasonably well prior to the general election campaign.

No ****, Sherlock. Those states that have yet to hold their primaries need to get off the dime and get absentee ballots into the hands of their voters sooner rather than later.

 

[d4m10n]

We're 0.02% of the way into this.

People cannot wrap their heads around the scope of it.

When would you guess caseload is going to peak in the U.S.?

 

[d4m10n]

Those states that have yet to hold their primaries need to get off the dime and get absentee ballots into the hands of their voters sooner rather than later.

Of course, that is the preferred solution.

 

[Babbylonian]

Of course, that is the preferred solution.

It is the solution, being perfectly legal and responsible given the problem we face. Any state government doing otherwise (e.g., just opening up the usual polling places for people to gather together and share viruses) should be considered criminally negligent.