• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

If you are feeling election anxiety today...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,373
Likes
5,563
Location
Australia
#42
The lines here on election day were quite long. Everyone seemed very friendly, though, despite the polarizing nature of the WWE.

Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote? No wonder 'mail-in' is becoming so popular.

In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
 

Doodski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
4,513
Likes
3,315
Location
Canada
#43
Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote? No wonder 'mail-in' is becoming so popular.

In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
I've never had to spend more than ~3-4 minutes in-and-out when voting. They always have extra people at desks to help out and supervisors buzzing about making sure things go quickly. and.... the count is usually done by late evening at the latest. It blows minds in multiple countries that the vote/count can be delayed by days or maybe more.
 

mhardy6647

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
1,969
Likes
3,352
#44
@ ca. 10:30 AM, Mrs. H & I walked in and voted sans any wait time in our little New Hampshire hamlet on Tuesday. Please don't infer anything about for whom we might have voted just because we voted on "Election Day"! :rolleyes:
 

SIY

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
5,334
Likes
10,974
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#45
Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote?
Because we have a lot more people, and the ballots are long and complex. It did not help that (here) they were only letting 5 people at a time into the building.
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,366
Likes
8,708
Location
Albany Western Australia
#46
Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote? No wonder 'mail-in' is becoming so popular.

In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
Possibly something to do with 25 million people V 323 million in a similar sized space :)
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
10,845
Likes
10,329
Location
Riverview FL
#47

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
497
Likes
744
Location
Melbourne, Australia
#48
In the UK we do not need to show ID. Our elections are concluded within a few hours of the polls' closing and I do not recall any need for the intervention of the courts.

No system is perfect but I suspect that you will have to look further than voter ID for the source of the imperfections.
Same in Australia, no ID required and we seem capable of freely and fairly electing governments on both sides of the political spectrum.
And apart from the odd gerrymander on occasion, we also very strongly encourage everyone to vote in our version of democracy
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,272
Likes
1,528
#49
If you listen to a range of international commentary there is genuine surprise that Trump has fielded so much of the vote.
Zero disagreement there.

But the high likelihood that there will be a significant number of people from the US even on this forum that would not find it surprising and possibly surprised/unhappy he didn't get more is a dynamic that would be very difficult (if not impossible) for people from outside the US to understand. I don't mean that in any negative way.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,373
Likes
5,563
Location
Australia
#50
Possibly something to do with 25 million people V 323 million in a similar sized space :)
Per capita the schools, halls and pubic buildings are probably similar. These are more likely available here as we vote on Saturdays.

I have read that some US States make in-person voting difficult for some.
 

SIY

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
5,334
Likes
10,974
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#51
Per capita the schools, halls and pubic buildings are probably similar. These are more likely available here as we vote on Saturdays.

I have read that some US States make in-person voting difficult for some.
For us, it was simple math. When I got there, 15 minutes before opening, there was about 150 or so people in line. 5 at a time admitted, and it takes about ten minutes to do the ballot for the non-senile. So multi-hour waits are inevitable, and the remarkable thing was that it didn't take longer. The poll workers were very efficient, and were patient and when helpful dealing with the, ahh, more chronologically advanced demographic that heavily populates this area.
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,366
Likes
8,708
Location
Albany Western Australia
#52
Zero disagreement there.

But the high likelihood that there will be a significant number of people from the US even on this forum that would not find it surprising and possibly surprised/unhappy he didn't get more is a dynamic that would be very difficult (if not impossible) for people from outside the US to understand. I don't mean that in any negative way.
Well he is not the first politician to emit a populist message, so I think people outside the US can understand that and its appeal to a certain demographic.

I think the reason why people outside the US find Trumps success surprising is the reality that his behaviour is so "un statesmanlike". Every time he opens his mouth there is a circus coming out * . He simply repeatedly says things that are demonstrably untrue/incorrect. All politicians do this to a degree, bend the truth, lie by omission, try and control the narrative, but this distortion is so overt with Trump it beggars belief and is a completely transparent ploy.

The more he does so the more it devalues anything he does/says and it actually damages "brand America" around the world. Thats not specifically my opinion BTW, thats an amalgam of things that I hear listening to international political commentary.

BTW I am listening to BBC world service and Radio4 which have pretty much continuous coverage on the events with commentary from many different sources within the US and overseas. We also get your PBS newshour on our SBS channel.

* Great song BTW

http://soundhex.com/i-don’t-believe-a-word-you-say-26213.html
 
Last edited:

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,272
Likes
1,528
#53
I have read that some US States make in-person voting difficult for some.
Yes. Managing the logistics is not the problem in the US even in a pandemic.

The rules and norms of what is fair game (explicit or implicit) or not in affecting election results in one's favor in the US has always been only as principled as a competitive business - which is to say something better than a "Banana Republic" but much less than most first-world countries with a Democracy whose shenanigans pale in comparison.

It has been problematic since the Founding days based on cultural, gender and racial and religious identities/divisions to decide who has the power to choose and it is getting worse due to changing demographics as the so-called melting pot (which threatens existing power structures).

What you are seeing now is just the extreme weaponization of that to a greater extent than ever before because the set-in-stone strong party identity that overlooks any such transgressions on their team while always suspecting the other of it. So, there is no penalty for doing so. It results in everything from voter suppression to voter intimidation to judicial capture.

Not very different from competitive sport anywhere, where one team's fans will excuse their own team's transgressions while accusing the other whether justified or not. This behavior is universal. IMO, it is only a matter of time where this will percolate into the elections everywhere. When they see this rewarded with power in other countries.

The only hope is that any Democracy (unlike most other forms of government) has a built-in feedback loop that self-corrects when it exceeds a certain level of debauchery rather than destroy itself. The hysteresis loop may be quite wide though. :)
 
Last edited:

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,272
Likes
1,528
#54
Well he is not the first politician to emit a populist message, so I think people outside the US can understand that and its appeal to a certain demographic.
That is the extent to which people understand anywhere. But it is much more than garden-variety demagoguery.

I think the reason why people outside the US find Trumps success surprising is the reality that his behaviour is so "un statesmanlike". Every time he opens his mouth there is a circus coming out. He simply says things that are demonstrably untrue/incorrect. All politicians do this to a degree, bend the truth,, lie by omission, but its so overt with Trump it beggars belief. The more he does so the more it devalues anything he does and it actually damages "brand America" around the world. Thats not specifically my opinion BTW, thats an amalgam of things that I hear listening to international political commentary.
In most places in the world, behavior that would be political suicide as being outside the "norms" and therefore self-limiting, has been proven to be not so here. And you are justifiably surprised by that.

The simple answer is there has been no penalty for doing that.

I am saying to understand why there has been no penalty in the US for doing that (and one may even argue rewards for doing so) requires an understanding of the identity politics dynamics in the US based on a history that is quite unique. People outside can only judge it within their own experience and expectations of behavior and so this would be surprising.

Trump just pushes it to as much as he can get away with and it has been surprising to even some in the US as to lack of any repercussions of breaking all so-called norms and traditions and to what an extent he has been able to push it without losing votes.

The big learning from a historical perspective from this era will be the realization of how fragile a Democracy really is when it is held-together so much simply by social conventions of norms and traditions rather than rules that have prescribed penalties.
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,366
Likes
8,708
Location
Albany Western Australia
#55
That is the extent to which people understand anywhere. But it is much more than garden-variety demagoguery.


In most places in the world, behavior that would be political suicide as being outside the "norms" and therefore self-limiting, has been proven to be not so here. And you are justifiably surprised by that.

The simple answer is there has been no penalty for doing that.

I am saying to understand why there has been no penalty in the US for doing that (and one may even argue rewards for doing so) requires an understanding of the identity politics dynamics in the US based on a history that is quite unique. People outside can only judge it within their own experience and expectations of behavior and so this would be surprising.

Trump just pushes it to as much as he can get away with and it has been surprising to even some in the US as to lack of any repercussions of breaking all so-called norms and traditions and to what an extent he has been able to push it without losing votes.

The big learning from a historical perspective from this era will be the realization of how fragile a Democracy really is when it is held-together so much simply by social conventions of norms and traditions rather than rules that have prescribed penalties.
Agreed, but has he now reached that limit? I think so.

Will we see another Trump-esq president? I dont think so.

BTW I have spent quite a bit of time working in various locations in the US, as well as vacation time, so do have some insight into the cultures and people.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
916
Likes
1,454
Location
New York City
#56
Agreed, but has he now reached that limit? I think so.

Will we see another Trump-esq president? I dont think so.
Your mouth to God’s ears. I think our official institutions have survived, but our ability to have a dialogue or negotiate in good faith seems to have taken a hit.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,272
Likes
1,528
#57
Agreed, but has he now reached that limit? I think so.

Will we see another Trump-esq president? I dont think so.
In the short-term perhaps if he loses this election. But he will be back in 2024 and will be very active until then as long as he is healthy to do so (and not as some hope/believe in prison).

The underlying support and tolerance for it has not gone away one bit. The results of this election has maintained if not actually strengthened it's viability if you look at the results below the President selection.
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,366
Likes
8,708
Location
Albany Western Australia
#58
In the short-term perhaps if he loses this election. But he will be back in 2024 and will be very active until then as long as he is healthy to do so (and not as some hope/believe in prison).

The underlying support and tolerance for it has not gone away one bit. The results of this election has maintained if not actually strengthened it's viability if you look at the results below the President selection.
Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview". How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely. Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?

One question, how stong do you view the competition, the other candidate, to be in this election?
 
Last edited:

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,373
Likes
5,563
Location
Australia
#59
Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview". How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely. Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?

One question, how stong do you view the competition, the other candidate, to be in this election?
Trump Jnr. may be being groomed. Rumours are that Trump will set up his own TV channel to keep the 'brand' alive now that Murdoch has seemingly dumped him for ignoring his advice on the pandemic.

What is real nowadays?
confused.png
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,272
Likes
1,528
#60
Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview".
I am responding here as a political observer not as a "party member". I am a "The Economist"-style fiscal conservative, social liberal that doesn't fit either party. So, no vested interest in being for or against any party. Just my independent observations and analysis.
How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely.
None that I know of but two things: 1. Most Presidents at least in modern history who lost after one-term haven't wished to run again and 2. None of the past or norms apply to Trump. So, it is entirely up to him if he wants to run and he can win.

If he doesn't come back, it will be only because of health reasons or any legal issues he may face from his pre-President activities. Not because of his viability as a candidate. In fact, there is no Republican Party without Trump any more. The biggest losers in this election were the so-called never-Trumpers (Republicans who campaigned against him). Almost every one of his loyalists running for re-election won often at great odds (from polls). So, he delivered it for them. He has demanded and they have shown die-hard loyalty to him and they have not suffered in the elections for it. So, there is no viable challenger within the party against him let alone one that is trusted to deliver what Trump can for the party.

In addition, Democrats lost ground in both House (although they still have majority) and in local State elections. So Trump is seen as the only leader available to the Republicans capable of winning despite the changing demographics that goes against their traditional support base. His core base will believe he was cheated out of this election regardless of the truth. or logic.

Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?
Depends on what success is. If the Senate majority stays with the Republicans ( as it is expected to barring two huge upsets in the Georgia run-offs in early January), they won't let a Democratic President do anything. They know how to fight (dirty if necessary) and win. Democrats only know how to hold hands and sing Kumbaya in a gun fight let alone bring even a knife. The Senate Democratic Party leader Chuck Schumer should be spending time playing Bocce ball somewhere in NY. He is so unfit to achieve anything that requires anything stronger than a strong tsk, tsk at the Republicans and throwing up hands saying there is only so much he can do.

In addition, Democratic Party is terrible at messaging and controlling the narrative that would let them achieve things against odds - both when they achieve something and when they are unable to. They are very much like total tech nerds that create a tech startup and think all they have to build is a great product and people will come and that Marketing and PR are bad and dishonest things. And when they try to do it, they are really bad at it. So, their success is mostly limited to whatever falls in their laps from their base afraid of the opponents than what they achieve.

One question, how stong do you view the competition, the other candidate, to be in this election?
If Biden wins, it will be because he was seen as not Trump (that the Democratic base was very afraid of) which is not a very complimentary thing. He, like most Democratic party members belongs to the old school of politics where you get into a room with the opposition, try to do some sausage-making behind closed doors with compromises and then go and have a beer later with them. He is going to get very little done especially with a hostile Senate.

The political maneuvering paradigm has totally changed (since Trump). Biden and the Democratic Party are totally unequipped to handle this. His only hope will be to have a growing economy through his term and let that translate into votes not much more. The Democratic Party is likely to disappoint most of his base in his term and will likely lose the House majority in 2022 which makes his rest of term a lame-duck. Trump will be undermining them from the outside every day controlling the narrative. I am positive there will be more press coverage of Trump during the next four years than Biden even if he is not in the White House.

The Democratic Party functions like a long running soap opera. Put people to sleep with a lot of activity but very little actually leading to concrete results relatively speaking and may be do one or two things of interest to their base and create a cliff-hanger and beg their base to bring them back so they can resolve it next season. These are like lambs to a slaughter for a Trump-like opponent, however well-intentioned their policies may be. And all their doings are easily reversed as soon as they lose power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom