I have read a lot of reports on how Texas doesn't provide polling places in poorer, minority neighbourhoods, forcing them to travel far to vote.
And I have also heard reports of people who had to stand in line for hours to vote in Texas. Again, in poorer, minority neighbourhoods.
Are you saying those reports are not true?
Agreed. And to your point, competitive states without voter suppression like Wisconsin and Michigan had turnout of around 75%, while Texas (which is most known for suppressing voters) only achieved 60% turnout.
The problem is, the people who are swayed by this argument were already going to vote Blue no matter who.
To win the election, you need to convince voters who are still doubting between Trump and Biden. And they have definitely heard this argument before, so a different argument is needed.
With this kind of crab mentality, it's going to be a race to the bottom.
I do agree. The EU needs to prove it works.
Lackluster economic performance relative to the US and China doesn't really make the EU attractive for a country like the UK.
On r/europe, people are delusional. They think the UK will come back begging and will accept a deal without concessions, i.e. no rebate and euro and Schengen obligations.
Reality is, the UK was the second biggest net contributor to the EU for a long time. The EU will need to make an attractive proposal to convince them to come back.
As it is, the EU is only attractive for impoverished peripheral countries.
Meanwhile, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK see more downsides to joining and on the Euro front, Denmark and Sweden also remain unconvinced.
(If it matters, I am an EU citizen, not a UK citizen)
Seems like they could just Google the lyrics and read that.
But I guess Spotify lyrics do give an idea on the pace of the song.
You are totally right.
Fascism appeals to humanity's most basic impulses and fascists will therefore always be a threat to democracy.
People crave the strong, authoritarian leader who will protect them from danger.
Indeed - and I really hope it passes.
I thought about mentioning it in my previous comment. But basically, it's another example that States hold most of the power. The States actually have the power to effectively replace the current system with a national popular vote if they choose.
Other examples are the IRV in Alaska and the district system in Maine and Nebraska.
Both elections exactly prove my point.
The federal system is set up to favor State power, which is why the US presidential election isn't decided by popular vote. By design, Wyoming and California are considered equals in many respects.
It's a bad system, but it's very much entrenched in the constitution.
And it also requires critical mass. It's basically impossible to enact meaningful change with a 50-55% majority. You need 60% or more to get big changes. And a majority of states.
Ik blijf het vreemd vinden dat zoveel mensen dit ontkennen.
Een vogel die geen nest kan maken zal ook geen ei leggen.
Wie wilt nou kinderen krijgen als je nog bij je ouders woont?
En als je pas op je 30ste een eigen, klein appartementje kunt krijgen, dan hou je het ook op 1 of misschien 2 kinderen ipv 3 of 4.
Of als je allebei fulltime moet werken om een rijtjeswoning te betalen, ook dan zul je eerder bij 1 of 2 kinderen stoppen.
A somewhat less pessimistic take: the system is set up to be self-stable.
And it was also designed so that States would have most of the power, not the Federal government.
At various points in history the common people did get benefits. New Deal. Universal suffrage. Civil rights. Abolition.
But it always requires a critical mass of the population to support change.
John Stewart always finds the best way to express what I'm feeling.
Regardless of the outcome, this election will go down as a shit stain on history.
I just hope the outcome doesn't turn it into explosive diarrhea.
Israel only bombs terrorists, not civilians.
Your German nationality will now be revoked for thinking the wrong thought.
Religion, sexual orientation, union membership and political beliefs have all been used in the past to persecute people.
To think that it's not possible again is naive.
Privacy is the most fundamental right to be free.
Without privacy, the Chinese CCP model will be the model we all will eventually live under.
Why make election season much longer than needed?
Printing ballots can be done quite quickly.
And is 6 months of campaigning really better than 2 months?
The way the US political system works is that it really requires solid majorities to want something.
So it will take a long time where nothing seems to happen and then suddenly big changes can happen.
I remember back in the 90s, it seemed impossible to ever get a black president, gay marriage or legal marijuana.
Or look at student loans or universal healthcare. Not perfect, but steps have been made.
So yeah, I do think the USA will lag for a long time and then suddenly surprise us all.
I know a lot of people don't like the American First Past the Post system, but to be honest, even in a proportional system like here in the Netherlands, you end up with very similar dynamics.
Truth is, progressives are always a small minority, in every country. Because they are always ahead of the curve on change.
In the US, this means that you only get a handful of progressives in the most progressive districts and never a really progressive national government.
In the Netherlands, this means progressives are always represented, but need to compromise to form a government. And often, they even get skipped and the centrist and conservative parties form a coalition.
Truth be told, Biden is as progressive as you could hope to get in the USA.
And, while I do think it is important to criticize him - and even threaten to not vote for him - to enable him to move more towards the left, it is also important to vote for him.
Progressives always win, not through getting majorities, but because they have the right ideas and eventually the other parties catch up to them.
For recent examples, gay marriage in the USA or marihuana legalization are now law in the USA.
I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.
Americans still care about the price of oil, which is set in a global market and where Saudi-Arabia and Russia have more influence than the USA.
Obviously, the extremist Arabs that overthrew their own leaders are also to blame. Where did I deny that?
I don't think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.
You'd first need to get new candidates to win a primary and then a general and the required majorities are lacking almost everywhere.
A more fruitful approach is to actually change public opinion.
It's a long uphill battle, but it's happening.