Welcome to Thunderdome

It used to be that way... it was used a way to keep poors and minorities from voting. Also literacy tests, also land ownership (skin in the game) tests. All made illegal as racist.

And now it's called racist to require an ID to make sure you are who you are, when you vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-par ... ted_States

3rd parties exist, but even when Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, he got 0 electoral votes. You need critical mass of at least 40% of the popular vote to get the presidency. We don’t have parliament. There is no coalition government. There is 1 winner in each congressional district. It’s not like you vote across an entire state, and the top 10 make it.

The two parties have built a wall (see the debates, since 1987), which the D + Rs control. It takes a large amount of $$$ to get on ballots across the nation. There are several billionaires who can do it.

The presidential election is basically setup like a Hotelling problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

Any 3rd party who shows up, just takes pieces of those votes, they can’t get a majority.

GORDON wrote: It used to be that way... it was used a way to keep poors and minorities from voting. Also literacy tests, also land ownership (skin in the game) tests. All made illegal as racist.

And now it's called racist to require an ID to make sure you are who you are, when you vote.

I think he means the issues test I post from time to time. Not other kinds of tests. And those have never been how you voted.

TheCatt wrote: And those have never been how you voted.

Literacy tests at polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

One Drop Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Landholder qualifications, and religious qualifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_ri ... ted_States

I like the land owner, and literacy ones.

GORDON wrote:

TheCatt wrote: And those have never been how you voted.

Literacy tests at polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

One Drop Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Landholder qualifications, and religious qualifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_ri ... ted_States

I like the land owner, and literacy ones.

You’re missing the point, I think. The test cake + I were talking about selects your candidate based on your actual political preferences for a variety of issues. Not qualification tests.

Ahhh. I htought the convo was other.

TheCatt wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Facebook is showing me political ads, so I'm just clicking them all. Hopefully they pay per click, not impression.

The more I click, the more I get.

It looks like you can enter a donation of $0.01 to Trump. Considering it. I know they pay $0.30 in CC fees.

I got my first Jo Libertarian ad. Of the issues listed in the ad, I really only care about two: 1) ending the drug war and 2) the national debt.

Yeah, she's got a few items in her top 10 that make me wonder if the Libertarians have been watching the news.

Leisher wrote: Yeah, she's got a few items in her top 10 that make me wonder if the Libertarians have been watching the news.

I'd love to split off an alternate world where the Libertarians win, and let it run for 30 years to see what happens, but I'm not willing to do that IRL.

I remember being in Mexico in the 90s, with much more free market healthcare. I paid $10 for a doctor appt and $3 for medicine. I was like "HOLY FUCK! They're right! Free market!"

Then I remembered that was an entire day of the median salary in Mexico at the time in the area I was living.

Will probably feel relevant again in 3 months.

Biden passes cognition test.

This is cute, but it's depressing when you realize you could do this to both candidates and these are the fucking options.

In real news, Biden makes a statement about Latinos at
the expense of black people.

Trump released his campaign slogan.

I think I'm rooting for an alien invasion to save us from these two dipshits.

Leisher wrote: Pot attacking kettle for saying racist, ignorant shit.

Hahah - suddenly Trump is an expert in race relations.

Professor who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984 picks Trump to lose.

Literally, in the first paragraph:

It's worth mentioning that in 2000, Lichtman predicted that Al Gore would win the election. Although Gore won the popular vote, he ultimately lost the presidency to George W. Bush after the Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount for Florida's electoral votes. Lichtman stands by validity of his prediction.

That's some quality reporting right there.

I have never incorrectly predicted the winner of the Super Bowl going back to 1980. Sure, the team I didn't pick has sometimes won, but those don't count.

So he's saying that had SCOTUS not intervened, Gore still would have won? Honestly don't know, I just remember Florida as having been super close.
2,912,790 to 2,912,253

It's possible, he was right all along, among other issues.

Phrased another way: SCOTUS intervened in the florida recounts to make sure they didn't break the law.

Leisher's candidate bitten by bat.

No word yet on whether or not this is the start of Covid-20