Partisan Election Officials Are 'Inherently Unfair' But Probably Here To Stay

Elections Canada
Elections Canada is the independent, non-partisan agency responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums.

Australian Electoral Commission
The AEC is responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums and maintaining the Commonwealth electoral roll. The AEC also provides a range of electoral information and education programs and activities.

Well, golly, if us socialist countries out here can do independent electoral management in some form, surely it should be possible easily in the USA...
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Well, golly, if us socialist countries out here can do independent electoral management in some form, surely it should be possible easily in the USA...
Click to expand...



They swear they'll get around to it once they've figured out how we both pulled off Universal Health Care.


A Wizard did it!
 
Do we have evidence of these political figures choosing a partisan decision over what they think is correct?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Do we have evidence of these political figures choosing a partisan decision over what they think is correct?
Click to expand...

Do we have to when we have evidence from numerous cases and examples that what they think is correct is what will benefit their party. Instead of hoping why not just remove the political affiliation requirement in various state election institutions. Sorta how at one time we actually relied on "The Deep State" of lifers in public service to correct the courses of the whacko-partisan legislators and executives.

I'll throw away my vote to the Green, Libertarian, Pants on Cows, Rhinoceros Party candidate who goes out with a platform to:

Take the judiciary off of ballots. Elected lower court officials mean you have guaranteed partisan judges in the higher courts.

Bureaucratize every level of election supervision and make it illegal for parties to be involved other than as observers of the professional bureaucrats.

Propose advertising and spending caps on elections. Take the financiers out of the game. Total electoral reform.
 
The US is astonishing in its backward-thinking, fearful-of-change attitudes. Late to the party in so many ways. Take metric, for instance. Or universal health care. Or sensible gun laws. Or a long outmoded electoral college. Or....

For the so-called greatest nation and leader of the free world, the US is in a number of respects so last century (19th, that is.)

I really hope that it's realized the time has come for real electoral reform for my southern neighbors. That might get the ball rolling on other necessary changes for the better.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Do we have to when we have evidence from numerous cases and examples that what they think is correct is what will benefit their party.
Click to expand...

But it hasn't been established that not doing that will produce better results. While I don't care about results and would totally back you if you said you didn't, I don't think you are going to say that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm not defining it. I'm leaving that completely up to foolmewunz.
Click to expand...

So he'd have to define "better", since your "better" might be different than his, right?

Then of course he'd had to define all the terms he'd use for the definition, to make sure you're not getting confused or anything. Of course that'd just allow for some fractal jabbaesque sub-issue wormhole to ensue.
 
Belz... said:
So he'd have to define "better", since your "better" might be different than his, right?

Then of course he'd had to define all the terms he'd use for the definition, to make sure you're not getting confused or anything. Of course that'd just allow for some fractal jabbaesque sub-issue wormhole to ensue.
Click to expand...

I rarely argue what is better. The thing that bugs people seems to be my indifference to policy outcomes that produce better or worse results. Heck, I agree all the time when people say my policy proposals create bad results.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Do we have to when we have evidence from numerous cases and examples that what they think is correct is what will benefit their party. Instead of hoping why not just remove the political affiliation requirement in various state election institutions. Sorta how at one time we actually relied on "The Deep State" of lifers in public service to correct the courses of the whacko-partisan legislators and executives.

I'll throw away my vote to the Green, Libertarian, Pants on Cows, Rhinoceros Party candidate who goes out with a platform to:

Take the judiciary off of ballots. Elected lower court officials mean you have guaranteed partisan judges in the higher courts.

Bureaucratize every level of election supervision and make it illegal for parties to be involved other than as observers of the professional bureaucrats.

Propose advertising and spending caps on elections. Take the financiers out of the game. Total electoral reform.
Click to expand...

I'm onboard with those.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Elections Canada
Elections Canada is the independent, non-partisan agency responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums.

Australian Electoral Commission
The AEC is responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums and maintaining the Commonwealth electoral roll. The AEC also provides a range of electoral information and education programs and activities.

Well, golly, if us socialist countries out here can do independent electoral management in some form, surely it should be possible easily in the USA...
Click to expand...

You can add the UK Electoral Commission to that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't require something to be productive to desire doing it. If that were a requirement in life, mobile gaming wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Mobile gaming is productive, it provides entertainment. If your view is that debating is pointless, why engage in it? Especially when you seem so unable to actually to commit to a point of view.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't require something to be productive to desire doing it. If that were a requirement in life, mobile gaming wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

That does not answer the question.
He didn't ask if you required something to be productive. He asked why you participate.
 
I'm going out to save drowning kittens now. I need to do penance for trying to address a stupid contention and inviting the latest Bob-a-thon.

Bob... you keep falling into the mock-existentialist trap. All this edgy libertarian neutrality is crap. If you can't agree that "fair elections" are "better" than "not fair" elections then this is like trying to explain Plato's Utopia to a cargo cult tribe. We have no frames of reference in common.

You have to work from some a priori concept of "good" or "right". My version would be that "fair" (as in egalitarian not as in poor/fair/good/better/best) elections are the essence of what we're trying to achieve.

Does anyone actually have a problem with that?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm going out to save drowning kittens now. I need to do penance for trying to address a stupid contention and inviting the latest Bob-a-thon.

Bob... you keep falling into the mock-existentialist trap. All this edgy libertarian neutrality is crap. If you can't agree that "fair elections" are "better" than "not fair" elections then this is like trying to explain Plato's Utopia to a cargo cult tribe. We have no frames of reference in common.

You have to work from some a priori concept of "good" or "right". My version would be that "fair" (as in egalitarian not as in poor/fair/good/better/best) elections are the essence of what we're trying to achieve.

Does anyone actually have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I explicitly did not challenge anyone's contention of good. I'm asking proof that changing this achieves that. You haven't established non partisan makes more egalitarian choices. I don't need an opinion on egalitarianism to ask that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I explicitly did not challenge anyone's contention of good. I'm asking proof that changing this achieves that. You haven't established non partisan makes more egalitarian choices. I don't need an opinion on egalitarianism to ask that.
Click to expand...

No, Bob. I don't need to prove that a system never tried that makes sense to anyone who has gotten past "Waaaah! I don't wanna eat carrots they look yukky! No. Not even going to try a bite!" thinking. The current system sucks. It is managed by elected or appointed officials with party connections, and thus, logically, party loyalties. So let's try the sensible-sounding solution.

This isn't that difficult. Current system bad. New system needed. Come up with ideas rather than being a fatalist and saying "it might be just as bad so let's leave it that way".

I believe that you think your little counter-insurgency gambit is doing us all a bit of good and making us re-think positions. It isn't. It is merely forcing us to remember how we had to teach our eight-year-olds the basics of egalitarianism. The shorthand works, and it's not requiring a lot of soul-gazing or navel-contemplation. "One Man(sic) One Vote". My son has it figured out.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No, Bob. I don't need to prove that a system never tried that makes sense to anyone who has gotten past "Waaaah! I don't wanna eat carrots they look yukky! No. Not even going to try a bite!" thinking. The current system sucks. It is managed by elected or appointed officials with party connections, and thus, logically, party loyalties. So let's try the sensible-sounding solution.

This isn't that difficult. Current system bad. New system needed. Come up with ideas rather than being a fatalist and saying "it might be just as bad so let's leave it that way".

I believe that you think your little counter-insurgency gambit is doing us all a bit of good and making us re-think positions. It isn't. It is merely forcing us to remember how we had to teach our eight-year-olds the basics of egalitarianism. The shorthand works, and it's not requiring a lot of soul-gazing or navel-contemplation. "One Man(sic) One Vote". My son has it figured out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't accept assertions without evidence. Those are a lot of words to say you are not presenting evidence.

You didn't even present evidence the current system sucks.
 
bruto said:
I think that's utter nonsense. The very idea that "better" is an issue here suggests a contempt for democracy. The only relevant issue is whether election officials bias or corrupt the results of an election.
Click to expand...

I do have contempt for democracy.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Sorry, I don't accept assertions without evidence. Those are a lot of words to say you are not presenting evidence.

You didn't even present evidence the current system sucks.
Click to expand...

Nor have I presented evidence of the nitrogen/oxygen mixture of our atmosphere, yet there you are still breathing and still posting. Do you accept anything as a "given"?

Both sides (political-party-wise) think the system is broken when it works to the other's advantage. That's a big tell right there. Could they both be right and it's only broken when it works to the other's advantage or are they jaded and only care that their side benefits. Since the former is onto logically impossible, it's obviously the latter. Knowledge of human thinking and bias is the only "evidence" you need if you're capable of extrapolating.
 
bruto said:
And presumably a contempt for fair elections, which makes one wonder what your beef is with the thread. It would appear that you are saying you do think partisan officials are inherently unfair, and approve of the situation.
Click to expand...

I have no stance on partisan officials because I haven't seen evidence supporting a claim on it.
 
Well, I came into this thread hoping to read a discussion on a topic I think is interesting and timely.

Instead I find a troll jacking off all over himself and being rewarded with a dinner buffet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom