Can Americans Expect a Fair Election?

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've already spoken about What is happening with the Vote in this country [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/707.1057600-the-45th-is-The-Fourth-US-President-to-officially-Face-Impeachment?page=2#24325705]

From the Infamous Redmap [https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-gop-gerrymandering-made-your-democratic-vote-useless] and the Supreme Court's Inaction until 2021 [https://psmag.com/news/breaking-down-the-supreme-courts-inaction-on-gerrymandering] (also known as "Too damn late for Democratic and Independent voters"), The sheer amount of states who have done everything to purge voters [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/02/17-million-americans-purged-voter-rolls-between-2016-and-2018-analysis-finds] who many don't know they have been purged until they go to cast their vote, and now, to Justin Clark (One of Trump's Top Re-election Advisers) being recorded that not only that 'Voter Suppression has been traditionally a Republican tactic' [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-adviser-gop-voter-suppression-poll-watching-2020_n_5dfd46c5e4b0843d35fc2322], but one that's been working well for them given the Trump election... and one that are going to get more aggressive with in 2020.

Now, in the efforts of fairness, Clark claims he was "referring to false accusations that the GOP engages in voter suppression". Here's the clip from his own lips [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg95ijWiyHs].


I know the well worn tactic. When you can't defend, accuse. It's one I've seen a lot when the political parties are discussed. It's never "Wow, this is really bad. I need to vote responsibility to make sure that these tactics that I find distasteful don't happen again". But it's always "YOU DO THE SAME, I KNOW YOU DO!"

In fair society, the defendant lawyer making the rightful claim that the prosecutor is guilty that the very crime his defendant is accused of doesn't absolve the defendant. It's not a tactic to pause the world for years for perspective while the Defendant is free to continue doing the crime. The court notes that fact, maybe takes the prosecutor off of the case, and then continues trying the defendant for the crime.

But for once, can we deal with the person who did something bad first and then go get the others?

If Democrats do it, yeah, it's bad. And I will vote out and condemn any democrat who put this in play. I don't see a 'victory' that comes by illegal means a victory. Because it will be found out, and we will lose face.

Seemingly this cycle, no Republican Politician has those same morals.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

This question haunts my every spare thought.[footnote]This is probably why I've been using edibles (gotta love recreational pot use) as I primarily use it to force myself to relax and not focus on my thoughts and it's less damaging and has a less severe hangover than alcohol[/footnote] Even setting aside the partisan nature of electoral administration (described in the OP), the utter lack of real response to the 2016 cyberattacks and foreign influence campaigns has made me deeply concerned that the necessary countermeasures aren't in place and the public remains substantially uneducated about how to spot social media fear/disinformation campaigns, whether foreign or domestic.

It doesn't help that the clickbaity approach to a lot of social media provides a smokescreen for much of these more nefarious items before moderators can get to them. Just watching my husband scroll through facebook at the end of the day and seeing him fall for the same tactic over and over again (albeit on liberal sites, which can be just as bad in terms of clickbait) despite knowing he knows that it functionally is unhealthy for him makes me so fucking depressed because I know there's millions of people just like him that are eating the same junk, getting primed for the same stimuli and essentially being groomed for much worse bad actors.

Look, I'm going to vote for whoever the D is on the line, whether it's Sanders, Warren, Biden, or Ham Sandwich. The GOP has essentially decided that it no longer wants to maintain the (small-d) democratic norms that allow democracies to function, and the necessary reforms fall into the collective action problem where at least a large majority needs to have the same fundamental democratic values in order to succeed. Studying American politics and seeing its deep structural problems (the primary system encourages extremist elements and makes them more viable due to lower bars to pass in order to make it to the general, FPTP means that two parties will end up fighting over small slivers of voters, separate elected executive means that political discussion is improperly focused onto a non-legislative branch, etc.), and then watching it fail right in front of my eyes has essentially been a major cause of my current burnout on politics. I'll vote Warren in the primary if it gets as far as Washington[footnote]I mainly support her because her focus appears to be on actually dealing with things like agency capture and more structural reforms needed to allow the government to be more responsive and can still be done with minimal cooperation from congress, as opposed to Sanders' magical "revolution" which I've always found relies on a "great man" theory that functionally doesn't work or Biden's "caretaker" approach that fundamentally is likely to allow the same issues to not be addressed, if not outright metastasize[/footnote] and I'll vote for whoever the nominee is in November[footnote]It's actually October because WA has universal mail-in ballots that we get a few weeks in advance.[/footnote], because that is the path of least resistance to getting past the current crisis.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The United States hasn't had a fair election in quite some time, if ever. Chiefly because campaigns are matters of resources, and this has never been a society in which resources were equally distributed. Democracy is far more than just an apparatus in which votes determine outcomes; the long list of historical failings of the United States both practical and moral only underline this.

I definitely won't vote Republican, but I'm also not going to vote for whomever the Democrat is, and there are millions like me who want something more than Republican lite. So choose wisely. Warren still has quite some ways to go in order to convince, and she simply will never have the credibility that Sanders has. Never Biden. Also never Buttigieg, though I do wish him well in catching up to Biden in number of billionaire donors. Empty suit McKinsey consultants, whether they spent their time advising mass layoffs or just learning to use Powerpoint, are not what this country needs.

 

[Silvanus]

I definitely won't vote Republican, but I'm also not going to vote for whomever the Democrat is

Wait, you won't vote for the Democrats even if the candidate is Sanders?

 

[Agema]

I've already spoken about What is happening with the Vote in this country [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/707.1057600-the-45th-is-The-Fourth-US-President-to-officially-Face-Impeachment?page=2#24325705]

It's "fair" in the sense it's (probably) technically legal.

If you have a country that (for instance) denies women the vote, is that "fair"? The election goes ahead, and everything may be done according to the rules... the fact we might argue that women should vote doesn't necessarily deny the integrity of the vote within the existing system.

We sort of know most of these shenanigans are designed to make it hard for lots of people who have a right to exercise it in practice. But the system is what it is. The election itself is fair... the system in which the election takes place may not be.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I definitely won't vote Republican, but I'm also not going to vote for whomever the Democrat is

Wait, you won't vote for the Democrats even if the candidate is Sanders?

That was worded poorly. I won't vote for just any Democrat; I will vote for some of them, Sanders especially.

 

[Silvanus]

That was worded poorly. I won't vote for just any Democrat; I will vote for some of them, Sanders especially.

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

It depends on what the mainstream media reports.

If Joe Biden wins the nomination for the democrats no.

If Bernie wins double no.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It depends on what the mainstream media reports.

If Joe Biden wins the nomination for the democrats no.

If Bernie wins double no.

I would argue that though they might try anyway, trying overtly to cheat Bernie during the general election would backfire spectacularly. They were able to get away with cheating Gore and then Kerry in large part because not many people really cared much about either of them. Sanders has a much more committed base of support.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, Venezuela tanked it's own oil industry, Russia and Iran are under pretty harsh sanctions especially with regards to oil, Saudi Arabia had like 1/4th of its oil production blown up, and the price of gas has held stable in the US. Personally, I'd call that an unfair advantage for Trump.

But if you'd like to start protesting the reelection now, you should know that you're not going to get the support you want literally revolting against prosperity.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Well, Venezuela tanked it's own oil industry, Russia and Iran are under pretty harsh sanctions especially with regards to oil, Saudi Arabia had like 1/4th of its oil production blown up, and the price of gas has held stable in the US. Personally, I'd call that an unfair advantage for Trump.

But if you'd like to start protesting the reelection now, you should know that you're not going to get the support you want literally revolting against prosperity.

The candidate most associated with economic discontent is polling ahead of Trump, so...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Define "fair". Cause the US won't have a fair election, but has it ever?

Now, how unfair it's going to be is another matter, I'd say it will be unprecedentedly bad in modern times.

 

[Marik2]

It never had a fair election.

 

[tstorm823]

The candidate most associated with economic discontent is polling ahead of Trump, so...

I wouldn't put money on that panning out without some major odds.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The candidate most associated with economic discontent is polling ahead of Trump, so...

I wouldn't put money on that panning out without some major odds.

Your bookmaking is entirely your prerogative.

edit: this is a thing, though.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/PredictIt/status/1209928462540115969"]

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Minnesota voter sues over Trump-only GOP primary ballot [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/475675-minnesota-voter-sues-over-trup-only-gop-primary-ballot]

So, now we have this.

It never had a fair election.

Fairness is largely an illusion. The attempt to portray something as equitable to keep tempers calm and the ideas of accessibility at the forefront to keep down rebellions.

Apparently, people are losing sight of this. People will rebel. I hope for civil, but take away people's ability to speak long enough and you can not continually ask them to be quiet nicely while you subjugate them further.

I know of which I speak.

 

[Avnger]

Minnesota voter sues over Trump-only GOP primary ballot [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/475675-minnesota-voter-sues-over-trup-only-gop-primary-ballot]

So, now we have this.

Despite the rather bs nature of the GOP actions here, this lawsuit will go nowhere. It's widely established precedent that political parties are, in the eyes of the law, basically private clubs. As such, they can do pretty much whatever they want unless there's an explicit federal/state law baring it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/1135633462038339589"]

Joe Biden would be such a disaster. Anyway...

It never had a fair election.

Fairness is largely an illusion. The attempt to portray something as equitable to keep tempers calm and the ideas of accessibility at the forefront to keep down rebellions.

Apparently, people are losing sight of this. People will rebel. I hope for civil, but take away people's ability to speak long enough and you can not continually ask them to be quiet nicely while you subjugate them further.

The people in power are losing sight of it? Yeah, probably. But as they lose sight of it, it comes into focus for the people who would revolt. The thing is, we can actually have fairness and a real democracy. It's not impossible. It requires taking power away from the ruling class and avoiding it ending up in the hands of just another clique. That is probably easiest accomplished by means of a highly organized and itself democratic movement that acts both inside and outside of traditional political processes.

 

[Pseudonym]

Between the two party system, the gerrymandered districts, the rampant voter suppression, the fact that most candidates use campaign funding from wealthy lobbyists and that that is legal, the use of electronic voting which is more vulnerable to election fraud and being overly confusing, the range of confusing primary rules that nobody understands and the fact that very few people, one of whom is running, have far too much media control, I think American elections could use some improvements here and there.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Minnesota voter sues over Trump-only GOP primary ballot [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/475675-minnesota-voter-sues-over-trup-only-gop-primary-ballot]

So, now we have this.

Despite the rather bs nature of the GOP actions here, this lawsuit will go nowhere. It's widely established precedent that political parties are, in the eyes of the law, basically private clubs. As such, they can do pretty much whatever they want unless there's an explicit federal/state law baring it.

I agree there will be little of legal recompense from this. However, it is a salient rebuttal to the mouthpieces who continue to say that Trump is the will of the people. He is not. And there will be legal cases fought proving that he isn't.

The people in power are losing sight of it? Yeah, probably. But as they lose sight of it, it comes into focus for the people who would revolt. The thing is, we can actually have fairness and a real democracy. It's not impossible. It requires taking power away from the ruling class and avoiding it ending up in the hands of just another clique. That is probably easiest accomplished by means of a highly organized and itself democratic movement that acts both inside and outside of traditional political processes.

I largely agree with you. We can have all the things we actually said we wanted. But it takes people being able to suffer loses with dignity. It takes commitment in doing what's right, not what you want to see happen. And those kind of people aren't in power now. And the ones with intergity are considered 'boring' and they lose to showmen like Trump.

In essence, we can get the things that you and I both want. We just need people to vote for the reasonable good of the country, not their selfish wants.

Now the question becomes how likely would that be...