Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«248 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Ah Pook
Aug 23, 2003


KIM JONG TRILL posted:

Voting for a more liberal third party tells the Democratic Party that they need to shift left to get your vote. Voting for the Democratic Party unequivocally because they are better than the Republicans does nothing in the way of pushing them to champion an issue.

Voting for a third party tells the Democrats nothing. They aren't going to court the votes of socialists because they're a center-right business party that has to check a poll before they know how liberal they stand on social issues.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Craptacular!
Jul 9, 2001


When the Democrats notice that they would have won with their numbers + the Greens or whatever, they'll rethink how they accomplish things.


What's keeping California from simply having some kind of Prop 9 or whatever to repeal Prop 8? Their initiative system is so easily abused that it's the de-facto argument against direct democracy. You can basically change anything you like with an amendment proposition and companies can and do try and buy laws.

Sad Banana
Sep 7, 2011


Craptacular! posted:

What's keeping California from simply having some kind of Prop 9 or whatever to repeal Prop 8? Their initiative system is so easily abused that it's the de-facto argument against direct democracy. You can basically change anything you like with an amendment proposition and companies can and do try and buy laws.
They could do that, and marriage equality would have a very good shot at passing, but they are waiting to see how the court cases play out first.

Riptor
Apr 13, 2003

here's to feelin' good all the time


Craptacular! posted:

When the Democrats notice that they would have won with their numbers + the Greens or whatever, they'll rethink how they accomplish things.

...but in the meantime someone else has won, and in many places would be quite content to strip away any and all progress that's happened

az jan jananam
Sep 6, 2011
HI, I'M HARDCORE SAX HERE TO DROP A NICE JUICY TURD OF A POST FROM UP ON HIGH


KIM JONG TRILL posted:

Voting for a more liberal third party tells the Democratic Party that they need to shift left to get your vote.

No it doesn't and this has never been true.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Craptacular! posted:

What's keeping California from simply having some kind of Prop 9 or whatever to repeal Prop 8? Their initiative system is so easily abused that it's the de-facto argument against direct democracy. You can basically change anything you like with an amendment proposition and companies can and do try and buy laws.
Basically everyone ran out of money and the AFER lawsuit is pretty much the only shot for the next 2-4 years. Prop 8 wiped everyone out and it would have taken years of work and money to win in 2012. There are a lot of people upset that nobody really tried.


New PPP poll out of North Carolina is interesting. Amendment 1 is up 53-38. Full results in PDF.

If you're optimistic, only 31% understand what the amendment does and we lead 42-41 when it's explained.

If you're pessimistic, the crosstabs suck, even when it's explained, and we're not winning unless we run up the score among 18-29 year olds.

Craptacular!
Jul 9, 2001


Riptor posted:

...but in the meantime someone else has won, and in many places would be quite content to strip away any and all progress that's happened

So what? If you feel both parties are bad, shut up and say it. The most that's lost is a Congressional seat here and there, you shouldn't do it with the Presidency because the amount of money required to run is so much that ideologues looking to make a point shouldn't even bother to run as they'll simply be ineffective (looking at you, Ron Paul.)

It's even worse in countries where parliaments or what have you control over the military, we're somewhat fortunate in that we can protest for a more progressive legislature without handing the military to crazy people.

SombreroAgnew
Sep 22, 2004

unlimited rice pudding


breaklaw posted:

Anybody else think Obama might come out for marriage equality if he gets a second term? I think he might. Or at least something like not letting states ban civil unions. There's been rumors and hints and I think he'll do it.
There is a 100% chance that Obama will come out for gay marriage in, like, 2016 and then later when it becomes almost universally accepted will take all the credit as the FIRST PRESIDENT IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE and documentaries about it will have montages of the Supreme Court overturning anti-gay marriage bans intercut with Obama and happy gay couples, and then I'll be yelling at the 4D-TV and my grandkids will be ignoring me ranting again about how when their other grandfather and I were around in the 2010s Obama didn't do poo poo to help gay marriage and was originally opposed to it and blah blah...

Slaan
Mar 16, 2009

Why, yes,
I will poke your Gushing Spring Point!


UltimoDragonQuest posted:

Basically everyone ran out of money and the AFER lawsuit is pretty much the only shot for the next 2-4 years. Prop 8 wiped everyone out and it would have taken years of work and money to win in 2012. There are a lot of people upset that nobody really tried.


New PPP poll out of North Carolina is interesting. Amendment 1 is up 53-38. Full results in PDF.

If you're optimistic, only 31% understand what the amendment does and we lead 42-41 when it's explained.

If you're pessimistic, the crosstabs suck, even when it's explained, and we're not winning unless we run up the score among 18-29 year olds.


I did my absentee voting to oppose this (also to see how long we can keep Santorum in the race). My vote probably won't help though.

breaklaw
May 12, 2008
If you see me posting, and I haven't replied to this post yet, remind me to because I "forgot"!

PPP re: NC Amendment posted:

When voters are informed that the amendment bans both gay marriage and civil unions their tune changes quite a bit. Only 41% of voters say they'll support it knowing that, while 42% are opposed.

I still don't understand why LGBT groups don't push for civil unions as a temporary milestone. I mean, of course I understand it - separate but equal isn't acceptable - but I can never be convinced that doing so wouldn't speed up the realization of full equality.

I mean, it would be like "OK let's just let them have civil unions so they shut the hell up and we can still feel superior", and then five years later "Well, they already have civil unions, it's pretty much the same thing anyway, what the hell".

Not being gay or a gay activist it really isn't my place to judge, but being goal-oriented, really trying to figure out the best way to achieve something - this has to be to considered as a strategy.

Tatum Girlparts
Sep 8, 2011

More like Tantrum Girlparts!
I can't be smug if I never stop whining.



breaklaw posted:

I still don't understand why LGBT groups don't push for civil unions as a temporary milestone. I mean, of course I understand it - separate but equal isn't acceptable - but I can never be convinced that doing so wouldn't speed up the realization of full equality.

I mean, it would be like "OK let's just let them have civil unions so they shut the hell up and we can still feel superior", and then five years later "Well, they already have civil unions, it's pretty much the same thing anyway, what the hell".

Not being gay or a gay activist it really isn't my place to judge, but being goal-oriented, really trying to figure out the best way to achieve something - this has to be to considered as a strategy.

"It isn't my place to judge, but lemmie judge for a bit..."

We don't accept CUs because it's separate but equal, and really in the year 2012 that should be enough of a reason. If I must go on, though, the major issue is if we do settle for CUs and wait the five years you suggest, then we give the right ammo to go 'well for five years it's worked just fine like this why would you want to change it?!'

Every year that we 'hold the line' on CUs instead of marriage is one more year to go 'eeeeh, you're pretty much equal now and it's worked well for this long, let's not mess with success guys!' for apathetic voters.

The only way to get marriage, like every wifebeater and vegas wedding already gets in this sacred union, is to never accept anything less, because as soon as we accept less it becomes 'why can't you leave well enough alone'.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



breaklaw posted:

I still don't understand why LGBT groups don't push for civil unions as a temporary milestone. I mean, of course I understand it - separate but equal isn't acceptable - but I can never be convinced that doing so wouldn't speed up the realization of full equality.

I mean, it would be like "OK let's just let them have civil unions so they shut the hell up and we can still feel superior", and then five years later "Well, they already have civil unions, it's pretty much the same thing anyway, what the hell".

Not being gay or a gay activist it really isn't my place to judge, but being goal-oriented, really trying to figure out the best way to achieve something - this has to be to considered as a strategy.
People have settled for civil unions everywhere but New York and it's worked out wonderfully. Civil unions consistently lead to full marriage rights.

State-Civil Union Date-Marriage Date
CA-2003-2008
VT-2000-2009
CT-2005-2008
NJ-2006-2012
NH-2008-2009
WA-2009-2012
IL-2011-
HI-2011-
DE-2011-
RI-2011

That being said nobody should be happy with civil unions for more than a few years because they are legally inferior, personally insulting, and plainly unconstitutional.


e: Civil unions are near dead at this point anyway.
The only plausible states where they could pass in the near future are Colorado (where marriage is unconstitutional), Minnesota, New Mexico, and Maine (where they will never settle for less than marriage).

UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at Apr 1, 2012 around 22:18

Kenzie
Nov 29, 2002


Glitterbomber posted:

We don't accept CUs because it's separate but equal, and really in the year 2012 that should be enough of a reason. If I must go on, though, the major issue is if we do settle for CUs and wait the five years you suggest, then we give the right ammo to go 'well for five years it's worked just fine like this why would you want to change it?!'
Interesting thing is that France created a civil unions law in 1999 for gay couples but failed to define it as specific to gay people. More than a decade later, the pact civil de solidarité (or "pacs") is now a mostly straight institution, while the number of marriages overall has continued to decline, even while the number of people seeking state-sponsored partnerships has increased:



Thinking goes that a lot of people want the state to recognize their partnership for all sorts of reasons, but want a lighter alternative to marriage. The shift might have also resulted in the further decay of marriage as people stopped participating, while anti-gay conservatives can point to it and say: 'see this is exactly what happens when we don't defend the institution of marriage.'

Expanding the institution of marriage to include gay people gets around this problem. And that's because supporting gay marriage, far from being a threat to marriage, is actually a socially conservative pro-marriage position. Gay marriage seeks to preserve the institution of marriage by reforming it with the times.

Mrit
Sep 25, 2007


Marriage, as an institution, should die.
I like the dependency idea posted earlier in this thread.
And my wife agrees.

Tatum Girlparts
Sep 8, 2011

More like Tantrum Girlparts!
I can't be smug if I never stop whining.



Mrit posted:

Marriage, as an institution, should die.
I like the dependency idea posted earlier in this thread.
And my wife agrees.

That's awesome but A) not the topic, and B) the work in deleting marriage as a concept is so, so, much bigger and wide affecting than just going 'ok, gonna change this from a man and woman to two adults'.

edit: Also a wee bit insulting to be all 'well I'm straight and married and we'd be happy to get rid of it' in a topic about gays wanting to be married at all.

Mrit
Sep 25, 2007


I was going to defend myself but since I'm fully for marriage equality and all you seem to want to do is argue with everyone, why bother?

Oraculum Animi
Sep 13, 2007


Mrit posted:

I was going to defend myself but since I'm fully for marriage equality and all you seem to want to do is argue with everyone, why bother?

Because you're proposing a more complicated alternative to simply allowing gays to marry while passively giving out the fact you are married, the very thing that homosexuals are fighting the rights for.

It's like a poor kid wanting a cookie and you throwing yours in the trash because you have so many you can do without this one.

Tatum Girlparts
Sep 8, 2011

More like Tantrum Girlparts!
I can't be smug if I never stop whining.



Oraculum Animi posted:

Because you're proposing a more complicated alternative to simply allowing gays to marry while passively giving out the fact you are married, the very thing that homosexuals are fighting the rights for.

It's like a poor kid wanting a cookie and you throwing yours in the trash because you have so many you can do without this one.

In total fairness it's more along the lines of saying 'well I want you to have a cookie too, but let's just bake a whole fresh batch together sometime, look see it's no biggie' and then chucking it.

Kenzie
Nov 29, 2002


Glitterbomber posted:

In total fairness it's more along the lines of saying 'well I want you to have a cookie too, but let's just bake a whole fresh batch together sometime, look see it's no biggie' and then chucking it.
I see this from libertarians a lot, the 'get the government out of marriage completely' argument when NO ONE is calling for that. There is no mass movement to get it done. And it's only brought up by straight people (who are often married) when the subject of gay marriage comes up.

Though not to belabor the point, gay marriage is often framed from an argument to equality: marriage denied to gay people turns gay people into second class citizens. This is true, but I've found that when arguing with conservatives it's not very convincing to them, because they don't think gay people are actually equal. But they do believe in traditional institutions.

I like to say: well, I don't know if you thought about it this way, but gay people getting married is kind of a conservative thing to do, isn't it? Here's an entire class of people who have no incentive to adopt a conservative world-view, who are denied state incentive to settle down, etc. The gay rights movement used to say "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." Implicit was that gay people were radical, and not like straight people and you should learn to deal with that. But now the gay movement is saying it wants the government to allow gay people to behave, well, a lot like straight people. 'Gee, I guess you're right, I never thought about it that way.'

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Support the International Campaign to Ban Spider Mines

Oraculum Animi posted:

Because you're proposing a more complicated alternative to simply allowing gays to marry while passively giving out the fact you are married, the very thing that homosexuals are fighting the rights for.

It's like a poor kid wanting a cookie and you throwing yours in the trash because you have so many you can do without this one.

It probably would be good for people to vocally advocate for such a thing so as to make gay marriage a more appealing conservative alternative, though.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



eSports Chaebol posted:

It probably would be good for people to vocally advocate for such a thing so as to make gay marriage a more appealing conservative alternative, though.
"Say yes to marriage or we'll rewrite and expand thousands of federal and state laws as well as private business policies to make sure our new thing is equivalent to marriage."

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Nostalgia4Infinity
Feb 27, 2007

"Lapdog of the cis- hetero- oppressors"


breaklaw posted:

I still don't understand why LGBT groups don't push for civil unions as a temporary milestone. I mean, of course I understand it - separate but equal isn't acceptable - but I can never be convinced that doing so wouldn't speed up the realization of full equality.

I mean, it would be like "OK let's just let them have civil unions so they shut the hell up and we can still feel superior", and then five years later "Well, they already have civil unions, it's pretty much the same thing anyway, what the hell".

Not being gay or a gay activist it really isn't my place to judge, but being goal-oriented, really trying to figure out the best way to achieve something - this has to be to considered as a strategy.

On top of the reasons already stated, many bigots are against civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. Look at Michigan, prop 02-2004 was sold as protecting the sanctity of marriage but all one had to do was look at the text of the proposition to see it would go farther than that. Those of us trying to defeat it brought this up and proponents said it was typical legal boilerplate and continued to advocate it on the platform of only protecting marriage. The proposition passed and is now enshrined in the Michigan constitution and in 2011 the state legislature passed a law making it illegal for universities or any other entity that receives funding from the state while offering any sort of benefit to same-sex partners.

I'd "settle" for a domestic partnership as anything would be better than nothing in my eyes but the bigots aren't going to let that fly either so why no go for broke (marriage)?

Shifty Pony
Dec 28, 2004

Up ta somethin'


Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

On top of the reasons already stated, many bigots are against civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. Look at Michigan, prop 02-2004 was sold as protecting the sanctity of marriage but all one had to do was look at the text of the proposition to see it would go farther than that. Those of us trying to defeat it brought this up and proponents said it was typical legal boilerplate and continued to advocate it on the platform of only protecting marriage. The proposition passed and is now enshrined in the Michigan constitution and in 2011 the state legislature passed a law making it illegal for universities or any other entity that receives funding from the state while offering any sort of benefit to same-sex partners.

I'd "settle" for a domestic partnership as anything would be better than nothing in my eyes but the bigots aren't going to let that fly either so why no go for broke (marriage)?

Many are, but not all. As you see from the NC poll UltimoDragonQuest posted above people are significantly more likely to support civil union type legislation. There is even more support for things such as legislation allowing inheritance and hospital visitation. I mean, even in loving Texas that enjoys 88% approval.

I've had the best luck convincing people from the religious angle actually. I point out that while many religious groups have issues with same sex marriage there are also churches which do support it and would like to perform such ceremonies. What gives the state the right to tell those churches that they may not practice their religion as they see fit? I also throw in that the laws being advocated for same sex marriage don't in any way require churches to perform them any more than current religious discrimination laws require a Catholic church to marry a Jewish couple, and I would fight fiercely against any law that would do so.

That argument just seems to really reach a bunch more people because it gets across that this isn't about asking for extra rights (as the bigots like to claim) but instead is about not imposing one religion's beliefs on others. It doesn't work on many the hard core evangelical groups of course because they have no ideological problem with imposing their beliefs on others; there is no getting through to them anyway.

SpiderHyphenMan
Mar 31, 2010

There's a hyphen, damn it!

I think this is the best place for this:
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage Law

New York Times posted:

April 4, 2012
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage Law
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

BOSTON — A federal appeals court panel heard arguments Wednesday on whether to uphold a lower court’s finding that a section of the 1996 law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The case is the first challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, to reach a federal appeals court.
In July 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

One issue under consideration is whether the law wrongly denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments and the right to file taxes jointly, to married same-sex couples, thus violating their equal protection rights.

In the case brought by Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, Judge Tauro found in 2010 that DOMA compels Massachusetts to discriminate against gay couples who are legally married under state law in order for the commonwealth to receive federal money for certain programs.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

The Obama administration initially appealed the lower court’s ruling. But last year, the Justice Department announced that it would stop defending DOMA, leaving Congress to appeal Judge Tauro’s ruling to the First Circuit. The House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group stepped in, hiring Paul D. Clement, a former United States solicitor general, to argue the appeal.

Massachusetts became the first state in the country to allow same-sex marriage in 2004. Other states have followed, and gay rights supporters are hoping that a series of legal challenges to DOMA around the country will ultimately lead to a Supreme Court ruling on the law. Judge Tauro struck down the section of the law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all federal purposes.

At the federal courthouse here on Wednesday, the arguments focused on what the appropriate constitutional test for DOMA should be: the relatively easy standard known as “rational basis,” or a tougher review that requires heightened scrutiny.

Mr. Clement — who last week argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of states challenging President Obama’s health care law — told the appeals panel that Congress had a rational basis for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He said that in 1996, as Hawaii appeared to be the first state moving toward recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress passed the law out of concern that it should have its own definition of marriage.

“Congress could rationally choose to have a uniform definition rather than have it rely upon state law,” Mr. Clement said.

But Mary Bonauto, who argued on behalf of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said that “the central question is what federal interest is served in singling out only same-sex marriages” as invalid.

“We believe the Defense of Marriage Act is an irrational, arbitrary classification of gay people for its own sake and not for any other purpose,” she said.


In the Coakley case, Judge Tauro had held that that federal restrictions on financing for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment — the part of the Constitution that declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states.

Maura Healey, the assistant attorney general who argued on behalf of Ms. Coakley, told the panel that DOMA requires Massachusetts “to live with two distinct and unequal forms of marriage.” She added, “This is a burden that Congress has imposed on Massachusetts simply because it doesn’t like the fact that gay people are getting married.”

Stuart F. Delery, the Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, also argued before the panel, saying that the court should hold DOMA to heightened scrutiny because it targets “a group with a long and deep history of discrimination.”

The three judges on the panel directed most of their questions at Mr. Clement and Mr. Delery. But the questions were measured and did not shed much light on how the court might rule. The judges — Juan Torruella, Michael Boudin and Sandra Lynch, the First Circuit’s chief judge — were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively.

Afterward, Ms. Coakley said she could not make predictions based on the judges’ questions but added: “When you look at, to me, the thinness of the legal argument on the other side and really the emotional and real fact-based arguments made by the plaintiffs, I’m confident that Judge Tauro will be upheld.”
We might actually get there, guys. It could actually happen.

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003

You want to file a WHAT!?

"The sanctity of marriage" thing never fails to crack me the gently caress up. I'd like to see people rally behind anti-divorce legislation to protect the sanctity of marriage oh wait straight people need those.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I think this is the best place for this:
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage Law

We might actually get there, guys. It could actually happen.
We're winning unless SCOTUS goes nuts when this is appealed, but this case is only for federal recognition.
44 states still won't recognize it unless SCOTUS is super nice and repeals all of DOMA.

Craptacular!
Jul 9, 2001


UltimoDragonQuest posted:

Basically everyone ran out of money and the AFER lawsuit is pretty much the only shot for the next 2-4 years. Prop 8 wiped everyone out and it would have taken years of work and money to win in 2012. There are a lot of people upset that nobody really tried.

Companies buy propositions for their own business interests and awareness all the time.

If Morgan Spurlock can get companies to give him money for a film about how much money they're giving him, it seems like an easy sell to find some big, socially progressive company looking for awareness and put something with a name like "The No-Carb Whopper Initiative For Marriage Equality in California, Presented by Burger King."

And if you think that's stupid, I agree; but California's political system allows it and that's ridiculous for a state that size.

Michaelos
Oct 11, 2004

Upgraded to platinum to donate money to Lowtax.

KIM JONG TRILL posted:

Voting for a more liberal third party tells the Democratic Party that they need to shift left to get your vote. Voting for the Democratic Party unequivocally because they are better than the Republicans does nothing in the way of pushing them to champion an issue.

I'm curious about something. If both of these things are true:

1: We have to vote for more liberal parties to send a message!
2: We have to vote for Democrats or else Republicans will win and take us backwards!

What about the following strategy:

If you're in a Solid Blue state, vote for a Pro-Marriage third party, but if you're in Wavering Purple, vote Democratic.

This minimizes the chance of sending a Republican into an office, while still having large numbers of people being able to protest vote Democratic stupidity.

It also makes sense on another level: If you're attempting to recruit Democratic voters for a third party campaign, you'll presumably have more luck in an area where there are are already lots of Democratic voters anyway.

I can't think of any plausible sounding downsides, though, which makes me concerned I'm missing something. What are the flaws in this plan?

Nostalgia4Infinity
Feb 27, 2007

"Lapdog of the cis- hetero- oppressors"


Michaelos posted:

I can't think of any plausible sounding downsides, though, which makes me concerned I'm missing something. What are the flaws in this plan?

You're voting for a third party. Which -- unless you have a lot of other people doing it -- will amount to voting for nothing.

Valie
Jul 27, 2011


Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

You're voting for a third party. Which -- unless you have a lot of other people doing it -- will amount to voting for nothing.

It's the exact opposite, actually; voting for a third party will in almost all cases amount to more than voting for the republicans or democrats.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

A homeless person was out on the street, looked up at me and said, "Draft Manziel." Just like that.

And that convinced me, that the Cleveland Browns' fans wanted Manziel.

Valie posted:

It's the exact opposite, actually; voting for a third party will in almost all cases amount to more than voting for the republicans or democrats.

Can you point out precedence of this that's younger than a century or so?

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Support the International Campaign to Ban Spider Mines

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

You're voting for a third party. Which -- unless you have a lot of other people doing it -- will amount to voting for nothing.

Voting for the losing party also amounts to voting for nothing though, so you're really only giving up a 50-50 chance of influencing the election (unless it really is decided by one vote).

Vorpal Cat
Mar 19, 2009

Oh god what did I just post?


Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

You're voting for a third party. Which -- unless you have a lot of other people doing it -- will amount to voting for nothing.

Isn't voting in a first past the post election system just wonderful.

Maddman
Mar 15, 2005

Women...bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch

If it matches my concsience I don't mind 'throwing my vote away' on a third party candidate.

I mean hell, I threw one away on Obama back in '08

Spatula City
Oct 21, 2010


SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I think this is the best place for this:
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage Law

We might actually get there, guys. It could actually happen.

So, wait, does Congress have legal standing to defend DOMA? I thought there was some dispute about whether they could even hire someone to defend it?

DivineCoffeeBinge
Mar 3, 2011

Spider-Man's Amazing Construction Company


Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

You're voting for a third party. Which -- unless you have a lot of other people doing it -- will amount to voting for nothing.

Voting for the Democrats even when you're unhappy with them simply because they are the least lovely of the two major parties, however, is not exactly a winner of a move either - because doing so removes any motivation for the Dems to stop being "the less lovely party" and actually start becoming, you know, not-lovely.

The whole "wasted vote" mindset is common enough that it even has its own Wikipedia page, but even when a third party candidate doesn't win and even helps "the other party" get elected there's still some thought that says they have a broader influence on the political landscape by introducing issues and giving attention to causes that the Big Two might otherwise happily ignore. Hell, Perot's run for President in '92 was widely criticized for "handing the election to Clinton" (even though polls show that the number of Perot voters who would have voted for Bush if Perot wasn't in the race was pretty much identical to the number that would have voted for Clinton), but you can still draw a pretty clear line from Perot's calls for a balanced budget to the Tea Party's calls for a balanced budget.

A third party vote may be a "wasted vote" in that specific election, but I think that to dismiss the idea that that vote won't have knock-on effects down the road is a short-sighted one.

We can argue whether the potential future benefits of a third-party vote outweigh the potential future detriment of failing to prevent the 'other side' from winning an election; that's a valid argument to have. But to say there are no potential future benefits at all is to accept the notion that our electoral choices are limited to "terrible" and "less terrible but still bad," and I don't know that that's a notion I care to accept.

gohuskies
Oct 23, 2010


DivineCoffeeBinge posted:

Voting for the Democrats even when you're unhappy with them simply because they are the least lovely of the two major parties, however, is not exactly a winner of a move either - because doing so removes any motivation for the Dems to stop being "the less lovely party" and actually start becoming, you know, not-lovely.

The whole "wasted vote" mindset is common enough that it even has its own Wikipedia page, but even when a third party candidate doesn't win and even helps "the other party" get elected there's still some thought that says they have a broader influence on the political landscape by introducing issues and giving attention to causes that the Big Two might otherwise happily ignore. Hell, Perot's run for President in '92 was widely criticized for "handing the election to Clinton" (even though polls show that the number of Perot voters who would have voted for Bush if Perot wasn't in the race was pretty much identical to the number that would have voted for Clinton), but you can still draw a pretty clear line from Perot's calls for a balanced budget to the Tea Party's calls for a balanced budget.

A third party vote may be a "wasted vote" in that specific election, but I think that to dismiss the idea that that vote won't have knock-on effects down the road is a short-sighted one.

We can argue whether the potential future benefits of a third-party vote outweigh the potential future detriment of failing to prevent the 'other side' from winning an election; that's a valid argument to have. But to say there are no potential future benefits at all is to accept the notion that our electoral choices are limited to "terrible" and "less terrible but still bad," and I don't know that that's a notion I care to accept.

Al Gore would have won the election if every Nader voter in Florida had voted Gore instead. In 2004, did the Democrats move left to capture those Nader voters? No, they didn't, they nominated the more centrist option instead. If you want to support the proposition that voting third party forces a major party to shift in that third party's direction to capture votes, I'd be interested to hear examples. I don't think Perot counts because Bill was going to be a centrist Dem anyways - he was Democratic Leadership Council from the start and had always talked about balancing budgets and so forth.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



edit:
Can the 3rd party/alternative vote discussion please move to its own thread?


Spatula City posted:

So, wait, does Congress have legal standing to defend DOMA? I thought there was some dispute about whether they could even hire someone to defend it?
They showed up in court on Wednesday and standing wasn't an issue.

They have the right to counsel in cases questioning the power of Congress. It's just not done much. Congressmen will send amicus briefs but generally Justice defends federal laws.

UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2012 around 08:19

Execu-speak
Jun 2, 2011

Welcome to the real world hippies!

There's a fair bit of debate surrounding this in Australia at the moment as well. That it is even being debated is disghusting as far as I'm concerned. Homosexual poeple are people just like the rest of us who deserve the same rights and respect as everyone else, including among other things the right to get married.

I really wish the world in general could move past this backwards biggotry and progress.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lightning Knight
Feb 24, 2012


UltimoDragonQuest posted:

It's just not done much. Congressmen will send amicus briefs but generally Justice defends federal laws.

Is the Justice Department going to defend DOMA? Dammit, Obama.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«248 »