Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

That's a valid point but it's still fucking absurd. I really wish there was some practical way of ensuring people aren't allowed to vote until they can demonstrate they're actually educated on the subjects in question and are voting based off of logic, rather than what the media rags and their friends told them (which, of course, is usually at least 75% nonsense.)

I can't think of any possible way that wouldn't be like declaring free reign on potential for corruption or basically stripping someone of their right to vote without actually taking away their right to vote.


But stupid people being allowed to vote has resulted in so many issues for our country, and for both political parties :-/

The best idea I've had along those lines is a randomized 5-question quiz at the ballot box, multiple choice, about basic facts. Not anything partisan, just things like "____ is the current Speaker of the House". Get less than 4/5 right, and the machine takes your vote but doesn't count it (and gives no feedback as to whether answers are correct or not).

Nothing obscure, just stuff that's current and nonpartisan. Have a nonpartisan committee set up with, say, 5+ members, and questions have to be accepted unanimously, so any one member can veto (so no chance of political pressure overruling any side). Come up with 15-20 questions, the system generates a randomized 5-question quiz for each user, whether randomly printed on the backs of blank ballots or electronically handled with voting machines; the number of possible questions makes it unlikely anyone would memorize answers, like knowing that the "right code" was BBACD or whatever.

Doesn't really "disenfranchise" anyone, since it's not preventing them from voting, it's just allowing gross ignorance to void their ballot, in the same way that voting for both candidates would.

[Wells]

The best idea I've had along those lines is a randomized 5-question quiz at the ballot box, multiple choice, about basic facts. Not anything partisan, just things like "____ is the current Speaker of the House". Get less than 4/5 right, and the machine takes your vote but doesn't count it (and gives no feedback as to whether answers are correct or not).

Nothing obscure, just stuff that's current and nonpartisan. Have a nonpartisan committee set up with, say, 5+ members, and questions have to be accepted unanimously, so any one member can veto (so no chance of political pressure overruling any side). Come up with 15-20 questions, the system generates a randomized 5-question quiz for each user, whether randomly printed on the backs of blank ballots or electronically handled with voting machines.

Doesn't really "disenfranchise" anyone, since it's not preventing them from voting, it's just allowing gross ignorance to void their ballot, in the same way that voting for both candidates would.

Super side eye at the idea that answering fact based trivia is a good proxy for intelligence regarding governmental policy.

[Cooper]

That's a valid point.

The sad thing, however, is that I don't think this is plausible in a two-party country. I mean, giving only two choices obviously mean that the choice will come in a black-or-white fashion. This is why, in a sense, getting at least a wider variety of parties and candidates would mean greater diversity and a much more balanced election cycle.

No. No, it's not a valid point. He's just advocating for literacy tests that support his side; "stupid" will invariably be "people that don't vote the way I want them to."

[Espe]

"No, I didn't predict that the Republican Party would lose its fucking mind.".

Poor Nate Silver.

No one could have.

[Cooper]

The best idea I've had along those lines is a randomized 5-question quiz at the ballot box, multiple choice, about basic facts. Not anything partisan, just things like "____ is the current Speaker of the House". Get less than 4/5 right, and the machine takes your vote but doesn't count it (and gives no feedback as to whether answers are correct or not).

Nothing obscure, just stuff that's current and nonpartisan. Have a nonpartisan committee set up with, say, 5+ members, and questions have to be accepted unanimously, so any one member can veto (so no chance of political pressure overruling any side). Come up with 15-20 questions, the system generates a randomized 5-question quiz for each user, whether randomly printed on the backs of blank ballots or electronically handled with voting machines; the number of possible questions makes it unlikely anyone would memorize answers, like knowing that the "right code" was BBACD or whatever.

Doesn't really "disenfranchise" anyone, since it's not preventing them from voting, it's just allowing gross ignorance to void their ballot, in the same way that voting for both candidates would.

Are you serious? That is exactly disenfranchisement. You are advocating for literacy tests. You are advocating for stripping people of the right to vote, no matter how much you want to dress it up as "it's just voiding their ballot."

[Endus]

I'm not fuzting anything. You're saying that Hillary Clinton was unaware that the entirety of her email communications as Secretary of State could't be used to the advantage of any foreign nation? I myself don't have such a low estimation of Hillary as that.

Her e-mail wasn't supposed to have any classified intelligence in it.

If it didn't have such material in it (as it shouldn't have), there would have been no real security leak if it were hacked, and no security breach if her maid printed out her public e-mail.

The word willfully doesn't vanish because of a comma, it vanishes because of the word "or."

Again, not how English works. If I say "for dinner, I'd like to have steak, or maybe go out for Chinese good", the "or" in there doesn't separate "maybe go out from Chinese food" so I'm suddenly not talking about what I'd like for dinner. You're making up stuff that simply is not true in English grammar.

[May90]

Honestly, it speaks a lot about voters if just one announcement from Comey alone seriously affected the polls. I mean, if you let one letter informing the congress of resumed investigation change who you vote for, then how shaky should your position be in the first place?

[Endus]

Super side eye at the idea that answering fact based trivia is a good proxy for intelligence regarding governmental policy.

I wouldn't support disenfranchising people based on "intelligence", at all. I do think you can make an argument for someone being so uninformed that their vote is of no value.

Are you serious? That is exactly disenfranchisement. You are advocating for literacy tests.

If you like, I'm okay with mandating that these tests have audio components, are available in any major language, and allowing measures for those vanishingly few people who are both illiterate and deaf, or who speak only an obscure language. It's not about literacy, it's about whether they understand what their vote is for. If they don't understand basic facts about the political landscape, then they don't understand what they're voting for in the first place.

[Wells]

Hey look, voter suppression works.

I wouldn't support disenfranchising people based on "intelligence", at all. I do think you can make an argument for someone being so uninformed that their vote is of no value.

Sure, I just don't think you can make an argument that its a problem that can be reasonably "solved" by a government policy.

[Gray_Matter]

Honestly, it speaks a lot about voters if just one announcement from Comey alone seriously affected the polls. I mean, if you let one letter informing the congress of resumed investigation change who you vote for, then how shaky should your position be in the first place?

A lot of people were on the fence because they don't like both people. If you are now told that one of those people is under investigation by the FBI, don't you think it would have an impact?

[Endus]

Sure, I just don't think you can make an argument that its a problem that can be reasonably "solved" by a government policy.

There's no perfect fix. Pretty much anything further than what I proposed is moving things away from "representative democracy", though, and into "oligarchy of the enfranchised", and we're just discussing what justifies granting someone a vote. Which isn't necessarily insane, but getting everyone to agree on that is near-impossible.

[May90]

A lot of people were on the fence because they don't like both people. If you are now told that one of those people is under investigation by the FBI, don't you think it would have an impact?

Given that the letter specifically said that it was not clear whether the information would have any relation to the case, no, it wouldn't change my opinion a bit.

[alexw]

The black early vote is down and Latinos don't vote in the Dems favor by as high of a margin. The dems only have a 30k lead in raw votes which is way down from 2012.

This is incorrect. The African American vote was down. Its now slightly above 2012 rates. In 2012 539K African Americans had early in person voted this year its 564K (with part of today the last day for early voting still to go).

https://twitter.com/ElectionSmith/st...78892924223488

And you are looking at the registered voter totals of R vs D. You forget those registered as unaffiliated. Now guess what all these young latino's voting for the first time register as..... and which of the three (R vs D vs UA) has surged in numbers this year.......

[Merkava]

Her e-mail wasn't supposed to have any classified intelligence in it.

If it didn't have such material in it (as it shouldn't have), there would have been no real security leak if it were hacked, and no security breach if her maid printed out her public e-mail.


Again, not how English works. If I say "for dinner, I'd like to have steak, or maybe go out for Chinese good", the "or" in there doesn't separate "maybe go out from Chinese food" so I'm suddenly not talking about what I'd like for dinner. You're making up stuff that simply is not true in English grammar.

What we've (you and I) been discussing is the Espionage Act. It's not necessarily concerned with classified information.

That's not how it's used here. The word "or" establishes a different set of circumstances under which a person can be said to have violated the law. The phrase "or causes to be communicated" replaces the phrase "willfully communicates." Something closer to your example would be saying "for dinner, I'd like to have steak, or for lunch maybe go out for Chinese food".

You said earlier that legal experts have spoken up on this very issue that we're discussing. Do you have any examples of that?

[Cooper]

I wouldn't support disenfranchising people based on "intelligence", at all. I do think you can make an argument for someone being so uninformed that their vote is of no value.



If you like, I'm okay with mandating that these tests have audio components, are available in any major language, and allowing measures for those vanishingly few people who are both illiterate and deaf, or who speak only an obscure language. It's not about literacy, it's about whether they understand what their vote is for. If they don't understand basic facts about the political landscape, then they don't understand what they're voting for in the first place.

...you don't know what Literacy Tests were, do you? They were designed specifically to prevent people who had the legal right to vote, from voting.

That is exactly what you are supporting.

It doesn't matter if somebody thinks the candidates are literally Gandalf and Sauron, they still have the right to vote and have their vote counted. That is what democracy is. It doesn't matter if you happen to think they are stupid and should be disenfranchised.

[Endus]

What we've (you and I) been discussing is the Espionage Act. It's not necessarily concerned with classified information.

That's not how it's used here. The word or establishes a different set of circumstances under which a person is said to have violated the law. The phrase "or causes to be communicated" replaces the phrase "willfully communicates." Something closer to your example would be saying "for dinner, I'd like to have steak, or for lunch maybe go out for Chinese food".

No, "or causes to be communicated "replaces the word "communicates". That's how English works.

In your own example, you introduced a corrective, by including "for lunch", which changed the sentence structure from the law example we're talking about.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

No. No, it's not a valid point. He's just advocating for literacy tests that support his side; "stupid" will invariably be "people that don't vote the way I want them to."

I think that, in some way, he'd be wrong to think that, because Democrat/Republican education is roughly the same.

But it would be more than just a simple test. I think if we are to allow people to vote, we need to make sure that them doing so is legal -- but also that the system does not allow fabricated data to flow through.

[DeadmanWalking]

So memes are ok if it's a mod that posts them?

Policing mods is like riding the bumper of a cop car because he isn't driving fast enough for you. You just be you and leave the policing to the professionals.

[Endus]

...you don't know what Literacy Tests were, do you? They were designed specifically to prevent people who had the legal right to vote, from voting.

That is exactly what you are supporting.

It doesn't matter if somebody thinks the candidates are literally Gandalf and Sauron, they still have the right to vote and have their vote counted. It doesn't matter if you happen to think they are stupid and should be disenfranchised.

It's not like the USA is some bastion of ensuring everyone gets a vote. Live in an island territory, like Puerto Rico? You're an American, but you don't get to vote for President. You a felon? No vote for you. Don't have the right ID, in certain states? Nope, go away.

[Merkava]

No, "or causes to be communicated "replaces the word "communicates". That's how English works.

In your own example, you introduced a corrective, by including "for lunch", which changed the sentence structure from the law example we're talking about.

Again, the phrase "causes to be" replaces the word "willfully."

Willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,

That's obvious.

The word "or" is linking alternative circumstances under which a person can be guilty.

Additionally, she clearly allowed others not authorized to possess it come into possession of it.