Colorado, Oregon, and Washington State, and they're all named Mary Jane funnily enough.
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/commentary-marijuana-legalization-takes-center-stage-this-election-season (http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/commentary-marijuana-legalization-takes-center-stage-this-election-season)
QuoteWith Election Day just around the corner, voters in multiple locations will again be confronted with cannabis-related questions. Seven state legislatures appear to still believe that there is a medical use for marijuana despite a lack of agreement from the medical community. Legislation is pending in each of those states. "Medical marijuana" has simply been the camel's nose under the tent, with the true goal of legalization covered up with a supposedly scientific approach.
Three states are now getting to the heart of the matter with outright legalization on the table. Colorado's Amendment 64, the "Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act," will permit those over 20 to possess, use, display, purchase and transport limited amounts of marijuana. Washington's Measure 502 would also allow limited possession of marijuana by those over age 20. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, Measure 80, would create the Oregon Cannabis Commission to regulate the sale and cultivation of marijuana for those over age 20.
The common argument of course is that this is going to generate all kinds of revenue. Maine is currently considering terminating the contract responsible for importing liquor and giving that control to the State, so they can lower prices and generate more revenue. Both of these scenarios of course assume a significant amount of consumption to generate all of those revenues. What they are all missing is that the increased costs, including lost productivity, increased health care costs, substance related violence, all of that is going to work against, and probably negate, all of that revenue raised. So the revenue argument, while it will certainly resonate with the public, is a false bill of goods.All that being said, it's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out. My money is on at least one of these passing, probably in Oregon or Washington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs3SfNANtig
Let us talk about the Green Party, since that is what the thread is apparently about.
I was happy to see that out of all of the presidential candidates, I agreed with Dr. Stein the most, disagreeing with her on only one issue, and that is the use of nuclear power, which I think, if used properly, will by necessity become a big part of our energy infrastructure as petroleum dwindles.
:enough:
Nah, it's about what it's about. I'm using my Creative Thread Naming License. It apparently is a hot topic this election season.
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
Here's the wiki page on him which seems to have been written by him or a surrogate. It doesn't mention his kooky-ass clearcutting proposal at all, just his campaign against King's version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Carter_(politician)
In full disclosure, I'm part of King's campaign for Olympia Snowe's Senate seat.
Yeah, this bit right here strikes me as partial while attempting to look impartial.
QuoteUnfortunately for Carter, both referendum campaigns were unsuccessful [8].
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
Not true. America can produce up to four times its current energy requirements in total via offshore wind turbines, assuming sufficient funding for the infratructure.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
It's quite possible only about, say, 60% of this energy could be effectively harvested. But that's still more total energy than the US uses currently, all carbon-free and totally renewable.
Including solar power, geothermal power and onshore wind turbines, the USA could easily become a net exporter of energy.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
I think a lot of Greens don't get that part. While I agree with them, often I am struck by some pretty blatant naivete. Some of the view points treat complex issues as simplistically as the GOP does. Or the Libertarians (the real ones, who I thought were kooks pretty much from the get go). People make extensive use of wood, and fortunately, that IS a renewable resource, and one that we're pretty set on maintaining, pretty much across the board. I don't think you'll find too many people advocating mass arboricide.
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2012, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
Not true. America can produce up to four times its current energy requirements in total via offshore wind turbines, assuming sufficient funding for the infratructure.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
It's quite possible only about, say, 60% of this energy could be effectively harvested. But that's still more total energy than the US uses currently, all carbon-free and totally renewable.
Including solar power, geothermal power and onshore wind turbines, the USA could easily become a net exporter of energy.
Thanks Cain! Now that you mention that, I remember you and Faust discussing it a couple of months ago. Jesus, it's getting easy to forget stuff.
Hopefully, we'll end up setting that sort of thing up- and why not if we can export the energy as well?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 02:10:40 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
I think a lot of Greens don't get that part. While I agree with them, often I am struck by some pretty blatant naivete. Some of the view points treat complex issues as simplistically as the GOP does. Or the Libertarians (the real ones, who I thought were kooks pretty much from the get go). People make extensive use of wood, and fortunately, that IS a renewable resource, and one that we're pretty set on maintaining, pretty much across the board. I don't think you'll find too many people advocating mass arboricide.
No, because it wouldn't make any damn sense. Anyone who really did advocate for that would be a piss-poor, and very unsuccessful, lumberman.
Two years back, Google and a New York financial firm were looking into invest heavily into a project that could form the backbone of such a future project - I haven't heard much since, but I havent really looked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
QuoteGoogle and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region's electrical map. The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
Maybe in the Presidential election, but it IS time for a new 2nd party to emerge. It might not be the Greens, but this could possibly be the election that rockets them into prominence as the nation's liberal party.
No it's not. For one, they will be cancelled out by the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties. For another, that idea simply reinforces The Machine. Not that any single vote against the two-party machine is going to change any cogs in that machine. But votes FOR it certainly doesn't accomplish anything.
If anything there needs to be MORE encouragement for voting outside the box. I don't think that a million other yahoos votes for that machine is a legitimate reason to sell yourself out and ALSO give them your vote.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Number of Twids=1
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:37:24 AM
No it's not. For one, they will be cancelled out by the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties. For another, that idea simply reinforces The Machine. Not that any single vote against the two-party machine is going to change any cogs in that machine. But votes FOR it certainly doesn't accomplish anything.
If anything there needs to be MORE encouragement for voting outside the box. I don't think that a million other yahoos votes for that machine is a legitimate reason to sell yourself out and ALSO give them your vote.
If I vote for Barack Obama, Massachusetts will go to Barack Obama.
If I vote from Mitt Romney, Massachusetts will go to Barack Obama.
If I vote for Gary Johnson, Massachusetts will go to Barack Obama.
If I write in Adolf Hitler, Massachusetts will go to Barack Obama and I'll probably get put on a list.
Why not vote for the person I agree the most with? My vote is not going to increase or decrease Romney's chances of winning.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 02:37:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
Maybe in the Presidential election, but it IS time for a new 2nd party to emerge. It might not be the Greens, but this could possibly be the election that rockets them into prominence as the nation's liberal party.
I've been a Green for 10 years. In those 10 years I've noticed something.
Greens are incapable of winning national level elections. The main reason being that Democrats don't want Republicans to win.
Greens do much better in local elections, especially where the Republican Party either doesn't have a candidate or is assumed to get such a small percentage of the vote that s/he's wasting time and money.
A Green ran for State Treasurer a couple of years back. He got 20% of the vote. He was the only person running against a Democrat.
People want to give third parties a chance, but the problem is they're still caught in the whole "the other side is evil" line of thinking.
But really, to someone who actually ends up joining a third party, the two major parties look the same but talk differently.
That happens also if you join no party.
Agreed. Also, I don't know how it works in other states, but the Green Party, or any party, has to get a certain percentage of votes to be able to be recognized. Kooky Carter garnered enough votes to pave the way for Greens running for local races, andnow they do hold office in many places in Maine including Portland. If everyone had just voted for whatever assmunch was running for the DEMS, the Green Party wouldn't have made it as far as it has.
In the grand scheme of things it is David v Goliath, but fuck, just standing there to get squashed isn't the way to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Green_Independent_Party
There is a list on this page of the Greens who are holding or have held office. Mostly city council, school board kind of offices, but they have had some success here in the Southern part of the state.
Quote from: Alty on September 08, 2012, 02:54:37 AM
That happens also if you join no party.
But I like partying.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
Agreed. Also, I don't know how it works in other states, but the Green Party, or any party, has to get a certain percentage of votes to be able to be recognized. Kooky Carter garnered enough votes to pave the way for Greens running for local races, andnow they do hold office in many places in Maine including Portland. If everyone had just voted for whatever assmunch was running for the DEMS, the Green Party wouldn't have made it as far as it has.
In the grand scheme of things it is David v Goliath, but fuck, just standing there to get squashed isn't the way to go.
David won.
It works that way in Massachusetts too. You have to get 5% of the vote in order to be a political party. This causes something interesting to happen.
In 2002, what is now called the Green Rainbow Party of Massachusetts (we merged with the Rainbow Coalition when we realized we agreed on everything, but with different emphasis) gained party status. Jill Stein, Carla Howell, and Barbara Johnson successfully sued for the chance to debate Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney. And you know, Jill got a lot of attention from the liberals in the newspapers and everything.
In 2004, we lost party status, since no one here wanted Bush to win. Even though he won anyway, without MA's help.
In 2006, we gained party status, and a Democrat ended up taking the Governorship either way.
In 2008 we lost party status.
See the pattern here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-Rainbow_Party#Elected_officials
Also, I forgot Chuck Turner was one of ours. That's another interesting thing to note. Often times, especially in Boston City elections, candidates don't say what party they belong to. Hell, when he had that scandal it wasn't even mentioned.
I'm not sure if it's old hat here, but I think that minor parties is a potentially good topic to explore, as Discordians. What good can they do, how can we break the 2 party system, all that rot. I realize that it's pretty USA centric, but people from countries with multiple parties would have a good perspective to add.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:37:24 AM
No it's not. For one, they will be cancelled out by the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties.
The constitution party is a pathetic joke, and the libertarians have neither grown nor shrunk in 30 years. They aren't worth mentioning.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 04:43:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:37:24 AM
No it's not. For one, they will be cancelled out by the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties.
The constitution party is a pathetic joke, and the libertarians have neither grown nor shrunk in 30 years. They aren't worth mentioning.
Worse yet, the GOP has basically assumed the role of the Libertarian Party. It's a failed party, mostly because the only thing they can agree on is small government and capitalism.
We had a really close Election last time, and Greens and Independents helped form a Coalition government.
The opposition have made it their mission to be as obstructionist as possible, everyone hates politics and is tuning out. Basically there's enough loathing for the way things turned out that I think we've knocked back the possibility of a more than two party system back by at least another 20/30 years.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 06:27:11 AM
We had a really close Election last time, and Greens and Independents helped form a Coalition government.
The opposition have made it their mission to be as obstructionist as possible, everyone hates politics and is tuning out. Basically there's enough loathing for the way things turned out that I think we've knocked back the possibility of a more than two party system back by at least another 20/30 years.
So, Coalition governments- I get them to a certain degree (also the use of the word government, since we use administration here, is an interesting distinction. We think of government as, ok, the USA is a Federal Republic, the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratically elected Parliament, Russia's a mess, and you Aussies are all debating the definition of knife whilst drinking Fosters). But how does it exactly work? During the elections, is it like, ok, we're running against each other but we agree to cooperate with each other against those guys for this particular set of policies until the next election sort of thing? Or is it more, err, ok, so some of us got in, some of you got in, lets see what we can do as far as compromise sort of thing? Or a little of both? I ask, because one of my political interests is creating a viable multiparty system in the US under the Federal Republic system. It ain't gonna happen any time soon, but, I'd like to see how it works.
Like for example, your average Green Party member here, as far as I can tell, is a former member of the Democratic Party, or would otherwise agree with the Democratic Party on most things, if not for the fact that they were owned by corporations.
Like, my first preference in voting is Green, followed by one of the many Socialist Parties that have 5 people in them because Socialists can't agree on anything and aren't anything like the monolithic infiltrators the Right makes them out to be, followed by any party with the word Worker in it, followed by the Communists, followed by the Democrats, followed by write in candidate, followed by Libertarian Party, never followed by Republican Party. But I used to be a Dem, and I voted for Al Gore. And even though the Dems are pretty low on that list, sometimes for an election, that automatically defaults as my first choice. Usually for Senate race, for example.
So, from what I understand, Australia's form of government is fairly similar to that of the US, barring the fact that you have a monarch who lives in London of course. How does a coalition government work in that form? Do you have a multiple choice ballot? What effect does compulsory voting have on all of that?
our system is the same as the Brits. Constitutional Monarchy.
I'm not super super familiar but basically if not enough of one party win votes to make a majority, others clump together to form a government, though independents and greens have been able to make deals for things like the carbon tax.
We get a multiple party ballot.
I dont think compulsory voting has much impact other than more votes.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 06:58:06 AM
our system is the same as the Brits. Constitutional Monarchy.
I'm not super super familiar but basically if not enough of one party win votes to make a majority, others clump together to form a government, though independents and greens have been able to make deals for things like the carbon tax.
We get a multiple party ballot.
I dont think compulsory voting has much impact other than more votes.
Ah, gotcha. For some reason I had it in my head you guys were a Federal Republic with a Queen and her Australian regent as Head of State.
I guess what I mean by multiple choice ballot is if you guys get to vote in order of preference. I think some places do that but I'm not sure where. Here, depending on what state you're in, you get more restriction in primaries, but you get to vote for whomever in the general election. For example, here in MA, if the Green Party happens to have party status at that particular time, I must vote for a Green. If the Green Party does not have party status at the time of the primary, I can choose, since I'm technically an independent. I could, theoretically, have said this year, "I want to vote as a Republican" and said, "Fuck Romney, I'm voting for Herman Cain" and then gone on to vote for no Republicans at all in the general election. That's not across the board, just how it works in my state.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 07:09:08 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 06:58:06 AM
our system is the same as the Brits. Constitutional Monarchy.
I'm not super super familiar but basically if not enough of one party win votes to make a majority, others clump together to form a government, though independents and greens have been able to make deals for things like the carbon tax.
We get a multiple party ballot.
I dont think compulsory voting has much impact other than more votes.
Ah, gotcha. For some reason I had it in my head you guys were a Federal Republic with a Queen and her Australian regent as Head of State.
I guess what I mean by multiple choice ballot is if you guys get to vote in order of preference. I think some places do that but I'm not sure where. Here, depending on what state you're in, you get more restriction in primaries, but you get to vote for whomever in the general election. For example, here in MA, if the Green Party happens to have party status at that particular time, I must vote for a Green. If the Green Party does not have party status at the time of the primary, I can choose, since I'm technically an independent. I could, theoretically, have said this year, "I want to vote as a Republican" and said, "Fuck Romney, I'm voting for Herman Cain" and then gone on to vote for no Republicans at all in the general election. That's not across the board, just how it works in my state.
You vote however you want.
I ran as a green once, and even then there was nothing stopping me voting for someone else.
The party chooses the representative, not the voters.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 07:21:42 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 07:09:08 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 06:58:06 AM
our system is the same as the Brits. Constitutional Monarchy.
I'm not super super familiar but basically if not enough of one party win votes to make a majority, others clump together to form a government, though independents and greens have been able to make deals for things like the carbon tax.
We get a multiple party ballot.
I dont think compulsory voting has much impact other than more votes.
Ah, gotcha. For some reason I had it in my head you guys were a Federal Republic with a Queen and her Australian regent as Head of State.
I guess what I mean by multiple choice ballot is if you guys get to vote in order of preference. I think some places do that but I'm not sure where. Here, depending on what state you're in, you get more restriction in primaries, but you get to vote for whomever in the general election. For example, here in MA, if the Green Party happens to have party status at that particular time, I must vote for a Green. If the Green Party does not have party status at the time of the primary, I can choose, since I'm technically an independent. I could, theoretically, have said this year, "I want to vote as a Republican" and said, "Fuck Romney, I'm voting for Herman Cain" and then gone on to vote for no Republicans at all in the general election. That's not across the board, just how it works in my state.
You vote however you want.
I ran as a green once, and even then there was nothing stopping me voting for someone else.
The party chooses the representative, not the voters.
That's a pretty interesting feature of Parliamentary Democracies, it seems, is that some group that is not the voting public makes some sort of choice.
In Ireland, the public chooses the President, who is the Head of State, and has state functions similar to the Queen in the UK (a smidge beefed up though in international relations, due to former President Robinson, if I understand Faust correctly), however, the legislature chooses the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), not the voter, and it's the Taoiseach who is head of government.
Here in the US, all politicians get in based on the voting public. Granted, we have the Electoral College which means that the states end up choosing who the President is, but who the states end up choosing is directly informed by who the majority of the voters in the state chose. Which does occasionally lead to weird shit like more Americans overall voting for Al Gore, but the distribution of the votes lead to Dubya winning. Normally that doesn't happen though. The popular vote, which ultimately doesn't make the selection, matches up with electoral votes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
Fuck the timber companies. They want me to care about what happens to them, they can start staffing their operations in Maine with Mainers instead of canadians.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 07:43:58 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
Fuck the timber companies. They want me to care about what happens to them, they can start staffing their operations in Maine with Mainers instead of canadians.
If you tell me that they're illegal Canadian workers, I will love you forever. Because that would just be too awesome.
Not as far as I know, but it's not like there aren't a shit-ton of people in Maine who need jobs.
QuoteBut how does it exactly work? During the elections, is it like, ok, we're running against each other but we agree to cooperate with each other against those guys for this particular set of policies until the next election sort of thing? Or is it more, err, ok, so some of us got in, some of you got in, lets see what we can do as far as compromise sort of thing? Or a little of both?
Looking at the UK Parliament since 2010 may be instructive in this regard.
The Lib Dems and Conservatives are in a coalition government, with the Lib Dems having several Cabinet posts, including the post of Deputy Prime Minister, Business Secretary, Energy Secretary and Treasury Secretary (not the same as the Chancellor). The Tory party retains the key positions of Home Minister, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor, of course, among others.
The two parties discussed areas where they felt they could reach agreement in order to secure the votes to pass their shared agenda. So taxation for instance, both the Tories and Lib Dems were in agreement on lower taxes for those earning under £10,000 a year.
However, there were significant areas of disagreement. For instance, the Tory position on student loans was directly the opposite to the Lib Dems, but the Tories refused to budge - they took a gamble, that the Lib Dems would back them rather than collapse the government so soon, and they were right.
As the larger party, with significantly more experience at running government, the Tories have been more successful at pushing their agenda than the Lib Dems have, and it has cost the latter a great deal of political support. A more aggressive leader of the party could have leveraged their position to get greater concessions from the Tories, but unfortunately, the current leader of the party is a bit...dim.
Each party still runs candidates against each other in local, city and national elections. They are most certainly not friends, and one strongly suspects if the Tories thought they could rule on their own, they would. But they cannot, and they know that the Lib Dems are ideologically closer to Labour than them, and that they would block a great deal of legislation in Parliament if they were in opposition. Therefore, co-opting them was necessary.
Not that it has been especially popular with either party. Many Lib Dems feel that Nick Clegg has sold them out for a meaningless title and boasting rights (the first Lib Dem leader in government). Many rightwing Tories feel David Cameron is using the Lib Dems to shore up his own political capital and prevent the right of the party taking power from him, and that he is too in thrall to their agenda.
I'm honestly surprised the whole venture hasn't collapsed yet, though it's only been three years. There is still time.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 07:43:58 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 01:48:21 AM
Eh, what the hell. Yeah, so Jon Carter ran for Governor a couple of times. He also crafted an awful policy to ban clearcutting in Maine that not only would've put a chokehold on the timber industry, it also would have lead to massive forest fires because it would've made it illegal to clear slash from legitimate harvesting sites. It was just stupid wrong policy. Thankfully, Gov King put a more sensible approach on the ballot to keep it from passing. Carter is just a gigantic ego-centric assface.
It happens. I think one of the problems that happens with the Greens is that they have a tendency to be absolutists about things, especially when it comes to the environment. They look at it as if quite a bit of necessary human activity must be done away with, and still some how maintain our current technological/cultural trajectory. The thing is, we're not all as lucky as Iceland, which has, for all intents, inexhaustible electricity production, and until we can either make our renewable energy considerably more efficient, or get better fuel economy with petroleum, then things like nuclear are going to have to be necessary as a compromise.
The economy in Maine, as awful as it is, heavily relies on natural resource industries. Land stewardship is obviously important, but most companies in the lumber and paper industries plan to be around for the long haul, they aren't going to go out of their way to completely decimate their stock, forcing them to close up shop. Putting the screws to those companies invariably puts the screws to the employees, they are the ones who suffer. Carter just doesn't get that part of the story.
Fuck the timber companies. They want me to care about what happens to them, they can start staffing their operations in Maine with Mainers instead of canadians.
Well, accorading to 2011 employment statistics, over 10,000 Mainers were employed by logging and paper companies. The mill that my Dad works at up North employs only Mainers.
How many of them are employed strictly in logging? Most of the guys who work in the woods are 'nucks. And it's nice that you still have an operating mill up there, but in these parts they're dropping like flies. Millinocket. Brewer. Cutbacks in Bucksport. Is the one in Lincoln operating anymore? I honestly can't remember. Hardly what I would consider a stable career choice for a young mainer these days.
Many more of those 10,000 are in paper mills for sure. And that employment becomes a lot less stable when you have asshats like Carter proposing lunatic forestry restrictions.
Oh, by no means am I agreeing with Carter. Not by a long shot. I'm all for working forests. I'm just for them being worked by Mainers. That's why I haven't spent a dime at an Irving store or gas station in almost 10 years.
Round here Irving got out of the convenience stores and they are all run by Circle K now, though the gas definitely is still an Irving product, but I don't buy anything from those place either. I always try to hit up the local mom and pop places.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
Yeah, but a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama...and a vote against the Green party.
I think I like the Green Party, but as we have learned from the GOP, it's way more effective to overwhelm and derail one of the major parties and go off in extreme directions than it is to challenge the two-party system with a third party.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 08, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
You said Green Party. I'm a Green. I'm going to talk about Greens.
I don't really know a whole lot about Dr. Stein's running mate. Hey, Rev, I seem to recall you saying something about the Greens in Maine being a little looney tunes. Could you expand upon that point?
A vote for the Green Party is a vote for Romney. Just saying.
Only if you would otherwise vote for Obama...
Vex- i would disagree on tht point. Notice tht republicans started calling them libertatians because of dubya.
And I don't ever see the DEMS allowing themselves to be hijacked by Occupy or some fringe group like Earth First. They're all about being bland and safe.
Yeah if anything them dems are maintaining appel with independents by remaining centrist
Granted it seemed like the dems attempted to coopt the occupy movement but considering that theyre just as critical of the dems it wsnt going to work. Conversely te prtiers complin about politicins in general but still opt to vote exclusively for republicans. Fake libertarians. Occpuy is made up of real anarchists real communists real socialists etc...
Also i may have mentioned this but the a button tends to stick on my phone.
Wait, so in America a Greens vote disappears when the Greens do?
Thats fucked.
In aus, if you're done a preferential vote your vote goes to your second choice after your first choice drops out.
If you've just voted 1, your vote goes to the party thats done a deal with the one you've voted for.
Its... Im not sure what you mean. If the greens have party status i have to choose the green i prefer for the primary. If we do not have party status i can select the party that i want to vote for in the primary. In those cases i believe that mass indicates their preference in the primary for the greens by state convention which happens usually in worcester. I dont have a car and worcester is a pain in the ass to get to from boston if you dont have a car.
So ok. For example no party status. I go in to vote for the primary. How would you like to vote today kevin? Oh.... Democrat since greens arent on the ballot. I write in vermin supreme instead of checking off obama. But then in november my choices are not party specific but rather by remaininga candidates which this year will be romney obama jill stein (green) and gary johnson (libertarian). So first vote is restricted to one party. Second vote is not.
I'm not understanding; The first vote is the primary, right? So that's where you decide what?
We have one vote. If I vote for greens and greens don't win, my vote then goes to someone else. Usually Labor.
Ok the primary is to decide who is the candidate for a particular party. The dems had very little real opposition to obama. Hes a sitting prez. The gop on the other hand had numerous candidates. What was strange there is that romney was never the front runner but won the nomination. And that is what the primary is. Who is the candidate for x party. The way it works is that there are a slew of primaries across different states. Iowa and new hampshire for example are among the first. Then we have super tuesday when a whole lot of states are clustered. Mass is one of those states. USUALLY super tuesday decides who is the candidate for each party. at the national conventions for each party the nomination is formalized. to be continued...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 05:53:20 PM
Round here Irving got out of the convenience stores and they are all run by Circle K now, though the gas definitely is still an Irving product, but I don't buy anything from those place either. I always try to hit up the local mom and pop places.
See, this is proof that everything west of the Kennebec is Northern Massachusetts. REAL Maine would never have a Circle K. :lulz:
Last week romney officially became the republican candidate in the general election. This week obama became the official dem candidate. Even though we knew months ago that it would be romney and obama (and with the greens stein was a favorite as well). So this is a separating the wheat from the chaff and then rallying as a party behind one candidate. Now that we know all the players we get to select from that pool in november.
America has a very long and drawn out election cycle. If youre a sitting president you have to start up your reelection campaign halfway through your administration. It might not officially begin but you have to start prepping then instead of... Oh i dunno being president. We also have the midterm elections which are a barometer since were all impatient bastards. Whoever dominates halfway through a presidents term is seen as either a rebuke or an endorsement.
OK, got it.
So in the second vote, you're not constrained to voting in any particular way are you? You can vote for anyone you like, even if you're registered as a particular party member.
Exactly. I can now vote for whoever is on the ballot or write in. But in the primary its totally along party lines. If the greens do not have party status i am an independent and can coose which party i want to throw in for i the short term. But i am not obligated to vote for the same guy in the final election.
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 05:19:33 AM
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
What I've seen of him is fantastic. He's actually one of the good folk following 'Chasing Eris' on FB, which was a huge buzz to see.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 04:46:08 AM
Last week romney officially became the republican candidate in the general election. This week obama became the official dem candidate. Even though we knew months ago that it would be romney and obama (and with the greens stein was a favorite as well). So this is a separating the wheat from the chaff and then rallying as a party behind one candidate. Now that we know all the players we get to select from that pool in november.
And how depressing is that? I'll probably end up voting for Obama, but it certainly isn't going to be with any level of enthusiasm.
if I vote green in your system, and they don't win, does my vote transfer or dissapear?
Well, it doesn't transfer, but I wouldn't say it disappears either, it will be reflected in the final tally for the green candidate. But it doesn't pass along to Obama, or Romney, or Johnson, or whoever else is running.
Ok.
In our system, after primary votes are counted, if nobody has a clear majority, the smallest vote collection are redistributed until there is a clear winner.
This is where someone with more patience than me tries to explain to you the shitshow we call "the electoral college".
Our presidents are not, in fact, elected by popular vote at all even though great pains are taken to make it seem that way.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
if I vote green in your system, and they don't win, does my vote transfer or dissapear?
It disappears in our system.
This is why Duverger's Law works.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
This is where someone with more patience than me tries to explain to you the shitshow we call "the electoral college".
Our presidents are not, in fact, elected by popular vote at all even though great pains are taken to make it seem that way.
The votes for the Green candidate end up basically not counting for anything. Some states split their electoral votes, like Maine and Nebraska, but for most of them it's a winner take all situation. And of course, some states are predictably going to go one particular way, except in weird elections like where Nixon got 49 states. So, normally, it's a waste of time to vote. My family says I'm throwing away my vote because they're still under the illusion that the popular vote actually means something at a national level. What I'm actually doing is supporting my party. MA is going to go to Obama. Romney's not even really campaigning here, and he was Governor here. Any one in MA who votes for Romney is wasting their time. Anyone who votes for Obama in MA is doing the same, except that someone's gotta do it anyway.
Conversely, Democrats in Texas are wasting their time. Romney's going to win there. Really the President of the US is chosen by a small handful of swing states, based on how 51+% of their population voted. Generally the person who wins the most electoral votes also wins the popular vote, but not always. Just ask Al Gore. It's a retarded system because states aren't people. But it allows me to vote for whomever and not feel guilty that my vote somehow contributed to the collapse of civilization as a lot of people think will happen every four years.
It's, ok I think I'm on the same page now.
In Norway you only have one vote, but then again we also have more or less proportional representation. Voting is only pointless if you vote for parties who have less than 4% support (the threshold for the "levelling seats") nationwide and they're not very strong in your area. Also your vote counts more if you live in rural areas.
The Greens are tiny here (not even in parliament), probably because larger small parties like the Liberals and the Socialist Left talk a fair bit about environmental issues (the Liberals, "my" party for the time being, are also pirate-friendly and pro-drug reform, something Green parties are usually big on). The Socialists have been in government for the last 7 without doing much at all, so the Greens could win a few MPs at the elections next year by appealing to disappointed Socialists. I think they also have a bit of a bad reputation of being stinky New Age hippies, which they often live up to.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 05:19:33 AM
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
I had a momentary spell of cognitive dissonance, thinking you meant Ben Stein.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 16, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 05:19:33 AM
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
I had a momentary spell of cognitive dissonance, thinking you meant Ben Stein.
:lulz:
The more that guy talks the less I like him.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 16, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 16, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 05:19:33 AM
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
I had a momentary spell of cognitive dissonance, thinking you meant Ben Stein.
:lulz:
The more that guy talks the less I like him.
I gotta give him points for being in favor of rich people paying more taxes. Other than that, he is so steeped in blind privilege that he's intolerable.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 16, 2012, 05:45:56 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 16, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 16, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 09, 2012, 05:19:33 AM
This primary i wrote in vermin supreme for the democratic party which he was running under even though hes an anarchist. In november i will be voting for stein who is the green candidate even though i am free to vote for romney or obama.
I had a momentary spell of cognitive dissonance, thinking you meant Ben Stein.
:lulz:
The more that guy talks the less I like him.
I gotta give him points for being in favor of rich people paying more taxes. Other than that, he is so steeped in blind privilege that he's intolerable.
Broken clock.
He also put out that anti-evolution documentary.
He also had that awful gameshow!
Let's not forget that he was part of Nixon's administration.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 17, 2012, 04:12:35 AM
Let's not forget that he was part of Nixon's administration.
Yeah, but that wasn't something that I knew right away. I think I found that out in 2000.