OT: COVID-19 thread #3

[dougthonus]

Yes, that is correct. For important positions on your ballot, you should take a few moments and see what they stand for. I don't think that's a lot to ask for the freedom to elect your leaders.

The reason why this doesn't happen is basic game theory.

Four combinations
You do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do not do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)
You do not do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)

You could solve this in somewhat simple ways if you wanted to. Simply make voting a requirement to have certain rights in this country. If you want to own property or hold a job you have to vote at all elections. It's way less work and much simpler than filing taxes which we require, and you could simplify the process into a trivial national electronic process.

You could also trivially add information about what each candidate states they stand for and whether or not they have voted based on what they say they stand for in the past and make that 30 seconds of research readily available to the voter as they are voting.

[Dresden]

New England Journal of Medicine wrote an editorial today, urging people to vote Trump out of office for his handling of the pandemic:

“The death rate in this country is more than double that of Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lower-middle-income countries, such as Vietnam, by a factor of almost 2000. Covid-19 is an overwhelming challenge, and many factors contribute to its severity. But the one we can control is how we behave. And in the United States we have consistently behaved poorly,” the editors wrote.

The U.S. “failed at almost every step,” the editorial continues. Despite ample warning, it failed to implement adequate and effective testing or even provide the basic personal protective equipment to safeguard health care workers and the general public. Measured by number of tests performed by infected person, the U.S. lags countries such as Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia, which do not have America’s biomedical infrastructure or manufacturing capacity.

The U.S. failed to institute quarantine and isolation measures on time and consistently, rules on social distancing remain loose and inconsistent and restrictions were lifted too early and long before disease control had been achieved. Public messaging on face mask wearing has been politicized.

The nation’s key public health agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have been politicized too, or excluded from crucial decision making, greatly undermining trust in them."

...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-update-new-england-journal-of-medicine-says-trump-should-be-voted-out-over-pandemic-management-as-us-death-toll-nears-212000-2020-10-08?siteid=yhoof2

[moorhosj]

The reason why this doesn't happen is basic game theory.

Four combinations
You do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do not do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)
You do not do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)

If something is important to you, go out and help change society's opinion. For every 10 posts on realgm.com, you could write 1 postcard to a voter about a topic important to you (climate change, business regulations, China, immigration, etc.). This has been shown to help drive turnout.

You could solve this in somewhat simple ways if you wanted to. Simply make voting a requirement to have certain rights in this country. If you want to own property or hold a job you have to vote at all elections. It's way less work and much simpler than filing taxes which we require, and you could simplify the process into a trivial national electronic process.

You could also trivially add information about what each candidate states they stand for and whether or not they have voted based on what they say they stand for in the past and make that 30 seconds of research readily available to the voter as they are voting.

These ideas fail the same game theory test. The current system benefits specific people, getting those people to change the system in a way that benefits them less, is a hard way to go. I don't see many signs that our leaders want a more informed populous. We are the only advanced democracy who works to actively make it harder for people to vote.

[Ccwatercraft]

The reason why this doesn't happen is basic game theory.

Four combinations
You do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do not do this and society does not do this - benefit for you? No.
You do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)
You do not do this and society does this - benefit for you? Yes. (assuming your needs generally match society)

If something is important to you, go out and help change society's opinion. For every 10 posts on realgm.com, you could write 1 postcard to a voter about a topic important to you (climate change, business regulations, China, immigration, etc.). This has been shown to help drive turnout.

You could solve this in somewhat simple ways if you wanted to. Simply make voting a requirement to have certain rights in this country. If you want to own property or hold a job you have to vote at all elections. It's way less work and much simpler than filing taxes which we require, and you could simplify the process into a trivial national electronic process.

You could also trivially add information about what each candidate states they stand for and whether or not they have voted based on what they say they stand for in the past and make that 30 seconds of research readily available to the voter as they are voting.

These ideas fail the same game theory test. The current system benefits specific people, getting those people to change the system in a way that benefits them less, is a hard way to go. I don't see many signs that our leaders want a more informed populous. We are the only advanced democracy who works to actively make it harder for people to vote.

I'm a bit of a political junkie but I've become quite exhausted with the process and I'm at the point where I'm just happy to have it end after being repeatedly bludgeoned with political advertising and bias over the course of the last few months. Part of me thinks this is the goal of the politicians and the media so that most of us just shut down and stop caring.

Making voting a requirement for other rights seems extreme, and since it won't happen I don't see a point in arguing either side.

As far as actively making it harder to vote, I just don't see it, its not that complicated of a process to begin with for the vast vast majority, I'm fine with it requiring at least minimal effort to exercise that right, how much research we as individuals actually do is up to us.

Personally I tend to spend more time considering the values and positions of my local representatives than I do for the National candidates but that is probably not the norm for most people. I have had some experience working with local reps and had a friend that was on our city's budget committee and realized long ago just how important picking the right people to represent your local needs is. Added bonus that with a city/county election you can actually have some influence (if you wish to get involved) because of the low vote counts.

[dougthonus]

If something is important to you, go out and help change society's opinion. For every 10 posts on realgm.com, you could write 1 postcard to a voter about a topic important to you (climate change, business regulations, China, immigration, etc.). This has been shown to help drive turnout.

There is a value / effort ratio here which is simply never crossed. The amount of value I can bring towards implementing change is so miniscule relative to the effort it would take to bring that change. Again, it's something that works in aggregate if everyone does it, but on an individual basis does not work, and doesn't change the basic equation I put on the board.

These ideas fail the same game theory test. The current system benefits specific people, getting those people to change the system in a way that benefits them less, is a hard way to go. I don't see many signs that our leaders want a more informed populous. We are the only advanced democracy who works to actively make it harder for people to vote.

Fundamentally the problem with most things in our government. The things we need to really fix don't benefit the people in charge of fixing them, but instead hurt those people, so they are never incentivized to fix them.

[Dresden]

Fundamentally the problem with most things in our government. The things we need to really fix don't benefit the people in charge of fixing them, but instead hurt those people, so they are never incentivized to fix them.

But there is an incentive for them to be responsive to people's needs and desires- they can be voted out if they aren't. That's how democracy is supposed to work. The problem with our system is that it takes so much money to run for higher office, that it mostly results in people with a lot of money having a large amount of influence on who gets to run.

Several candidates recently have bucked that trend- Bernie Sanders I believe didn't take any corporate money (although I don't know if he accepted money from billionaires).

If money were taken out of running for office, it would have a big impact. But as you say, the people who would be responsible for making those sorts of changes are the same ones who have gotten to where they are with the help of the people and interests that such a change would hurt.

[moorhosj]

As far as actively making it harder to vote, I just don't see it, its not that complicated of a process to begin with for the vast vast majority, I'm fine with it requiring at least minimal effort to exercise that right, how much research we as individuals actually do is up to us.

I'm sure you don't see it, you're not the target demographic, doesn't mean it's not happening.

[*] Texas Republican governor orders counties to close multiple ballot drop-off sites - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/01/texas-mail-ballot-governor-orders-multiple-drop-off-sites-closed/5885241002/

What is the point of eliminating ballot drop boxes other than making it harder for specific people to vote?

[*] In 2018, Floridians voted for Amendment 4, which restored the unconditional right to vote to 1.4 million ex-felons, except for those guilty of rape or murder. But DeSantis signed a law requiring former inmates to repay their fines and fees. - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/free-but-in-debt-florida-ex-inmates-unable-to-vote/ar-BB19JUIS

This stipulation was never on the constitutional amendment that overwhelmingly passed. The court ruled it isn't illegal for them to require the payment of fines, so that's not the questions. The point is that actually writing a law that creates this new requirement literally takes the vote away from people (some of them are interviewed in the article).

[*] The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down key portions of North Carolina’s strict 2013 voting law on Friday, delivering a stern rebuke to the state’s Republican General Assembly and Governor Pat McCrory. The three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously concluded that the law was racially discriminatory, and it blocked a requirement that voters show photo identification to vote and restored same-day voter registration, a week of early voting, pre-registration for teenagers, and out-of-precinct voting.

“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans,” Motz wrote. “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

This one includes evidence that the voting habits of black North Carolinians were specifically analyzed by the North Carolina legislature, who then passed laws targeting those voting habits.

[Dresden]

Not to mention the more mundane impediments to voting, such as having to wait in the line 2-3 hours to vote. We see this regularly at every election- some places in the country don't have enough polling stations, so people have to endure standing in line for hours just to cast their vote. Honestly, if I had to do that after a long day of work, I would be less likely to vote, too. There should never be that long of a wait to vote. And this happens disproportionately in urban settings (i.e. democratic and likely to be people of color).

[Ccwatercraft]

Not to mention the more mundane impediments to voting, such as having to wait in the line 2-3 hours to vote. We see this regularly at every election- some places in the country don't have enough polling stations, so people have to endure standing in line for hours just to cast their vote. Honestly, if I had to do that after a long day of work, I would be less likely to vote, too. There should never be that long of a wait to vote. And this happens disproportionately in urban settings (i.e. democratic and likely to be people of color).

Isn't that a local thing in your area? This circles back to my comment on paying attention to local politics. In 2008 We had only 1 early vote location in our county with massive lines, ridiculous, then 4-5 hours on Tuesday.

The solution.... 2010 we gave the election super the Boylen boot and the new super added 5 locations + expanded each regular polling location, it's been easy peasy since, I haven't waited more than 10 minutes. Usually its 5 minutes. We literally plastered the city with signs supporting the replacement.

If its difficult, voters need to boot out the incompetent people. For us the county handles all of that stuff, but not without the help of active voters.

[moorhosj]

Isn't that a local thing in your area? This circles back to my comment on paying attention to local politics. In 2008 We had only 1 early vote location in our county with massive lines, ridiculous, then 4-5 hours on Tuesday.

The solution.... 2010 we gave the election super the Boylen boot and the new super added 5 locations + expanded each regular polling location, it's been easy peasy since, I haven't waited more than 10 minutes. Usually its 5 minutes. We literally plastered the city with signs supporting the replacement.

If its difficult, voters need to boot out the incompetent people. For us the county handles all of that stuff, but not without the help of active voters.

I think you’re missing the forest from the trees, although you are very correct to point out how local these things are. If elected officials (or those empowered by elected officials) are increasing the barriers to voting, it becomes significantly harder to vote those people out. This is likely the reason they created the voting barriers in the first place - to retain power.

In your particular situation things seem to have worked out, but only after a period of time where people were disenfranchised. Which leads back the original point, do you still not believe that some voters are disenfranchised even though you admit it happened to you?

[Ccwatercraft]

Isn't that a local thing in your area? This circles back to my comment on paying attention to local politics. In 2008 We had only 1 early vote location in our county with massive lines, ridiculous, then 4-5 hours on Tuesday.

The solution.... 2010 we gave the election super the Boylen boot and the new super added 5 locations + expanded each regular polling location, it's been easy peasy since, I haven't waited more than 10 minutes. Usually its 5 minutes. We literally plastered the city with signs supporting the replacement.

If its difficult, voters need to boot out the incompetent people. For us the county handles all of that stuff, but not without the help of active voters.

I think you’re missing the forest from the trees, although you are very correct to point out how local these things are. If elected officials (or those empowered by elected officials) are increasing the barriers to voting, it becomes significantly harder to vote those people out. This is likely the reason they created the voting barriers in the first place - to retain power.

In your particular situation things seem to have worked out, but only after a period of time where people were disenfranchised. Which leads back the original point, do you still not believe that some voters are disenfranchised even though you admit it happened to you?

I guess that would be a great argument if I felt like I was disenfranchised, I wasn't deprived of anything. I was inconvenienced one afternoon along with others and we fixed it the next election by 20-30% margin. Problem solved.

Perhaps other areas don't have an elected county election supervisor? I've never checked.

[moorhosj]

I guess that would be a great argument if I felt like I was disenfranchised, I wasn't deprived of anything. I was inconvenienced one afternoon along with others and we fixed it the next election by 20-30% margin. Problem solved.

Perhaps other areas don't have an elected county election supervisor? I've never checked.

Again, you aren't the target demographic because you have 4-5 hours to commit to voting. Can you imagine a world where someone doesn't have 4-5 hours to spend in line waiting to vote and how that might limit their ability to vote?

[Dresden]

I thought states were responsible for holding elections, and controlled everything to do with them- is that not the case?

[Ice Man]

We are the only advanced democracy who works to actively make it harder for people to vote.

Tens of millions of Americans would like to disenfranchise people who have different political views than them, and they elect politicians and judges who attempt to do just that.

I don't know if that happens in other advanced democracies. Perhaps, but if so I haven't heard of that.

[johnnyvann840]

Nikola Pekovic reportedly in bad shape and deteriorating with Covid-19. His lungs have been infected and he's in the hospital and currently on respirator.


edit- apparently his family is denying he is in as bad a shape as some of the reports and saying he is not currently on a respirator.

[dice]

I guess that would be a great argument if I felt like I was disenfranchised, I wasn't deprived of anything. I was inconvenienced one afternoon along with others and we fixed it the next election by 20-30% margin. Problem solved.

Perhaps other areas don't have an elected county election supervisor? I've never checked.

Again, you aren't the target demographic because you have 4-5 hours to commit to voting. Can you imagine a world where someone doesn't have 4-5 hours to spend in line waiting to vote and how that might limit their ability to vote?

and even if someone HAS the time to wait hours in line to vote, it's still an issue. there are countless millions of disengaged voters in this country whose decision to vote or not may very well hinge on something as seemingly minor as how long they have to wait in line. you could say "well, if they care that little, then maybe they shouldn't be voting anyway", but then where do you draw the line on how much we should inconvenience prospective voters?

of course, if vote by mail was normalized, long lines at polling places wouldn't be an issue

as for disenfranchising voters, ever since the voting rights act was rolled back in 2013, laws in republican-controlled states have proliferated with exactly that intent:

https://time.com/5890983/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights/

hell, a big story in the news right now is the state of florida's attempt to disenfranchise former felons with an effective poll tax:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-florida-felon-voting-poll-tax-ruling-appeal-20200912-huooivzk4zegdbfmwnvh2mx6qe-story.html

the hilarious irony is that it not only will the tactic not be effective, but will probably backfire. because many people, including mike bloomberg, have decided to pay their fines for them, which may inspire them to vote democrat when they otherwise wouldn't bother going to the polls!

https://www.theroot.com/billionaire-michael-bloomberg-pays-poll-tax-for-32-00-1845145592

of course, now the scumbags who fought to institute the poll tax are claiming that people like bloomberg are paying people to vote. no shame

[Dresden]

Nikola Pekovic reportedly in bad shape and deteriorating with Covid-19. His lungs have been infected and he's in the hospital and currently on respirator.


edit- apparently his family is denying he is in as bad a shape as some of the reports and saying he is not currently on a respirator.

I'm sorry to hear that- I hope he comes out of it ok.

Chris Christie was released from the hospital, which is good. He is overweight and has asthma, and is 58, so he had a lot of risk factors.

[dice]

Nikola Pekovic reportedly in bad shape and deteriorating with Covid-19. His lungs have been infected and he's in the hospital and currently on respirator.


edit- apparently his family is denying he is in as bad a shape as some of the reports and saying he is not currently on a respirator.

I'm sorry to hear that- I hope he comes out of it ok.

Chris Christie was released from the hospital, which is good. He is overweight and has asthma, and is 58, so he had a lot of risk factors.

OT, but christie had lap band surgery and is still very overweight. you'd think that he has been struggling with weight his entire life. but...

[Ccwatercraft]

I guess that would be a great argument if I felt like I was disenfranchised, I wasn't deprived of anything. I was inconvenienced one afternoon along with others and we fixed it the next election by 20-30% margin. Problem solved.

Perhaps other areas don't have an elected county election supervisor? I've never checked.

Again, you aren't the target demographic because you have 4-5 hours to commit to voting. Can you imagine a world where someone doesn't have 4-5 hours to spend in line waiting to vote and how that might limit their ability to vote?

Of course I'm in the targeted demographic! pretty much anybody that has even a slim chance of a long delay screwing up their day or work or whatever is targeted. Just because I've made it work every election sure as hell doesn't mean I didn't have put forth effort to arrange that. It also doesn't mean that if I missed one that I'd lose an ounce of sleep.

Absentee voting, early voting or a holiday are options. I support those and whatever else is reasonable. But reasonable is pretty wide ranging which creates issues.

As mentioned before, it was my understanding that it's a county/state issue related to efficent voting and a state issue related to required documentation.

I have zero issues with delays, license being scanned , picture taken, signature verified and registration confirmed. I've done all 4 as technology allowed for every election for 3 decades not just for voting but countless other activities.

[Dresden]

Wisconsin is not doing well:

"Wisconsin’s numbers are sobering. On Thursday the state’s new daily case count cleared 3,000 for the first time. Its seven-day average (2,491) has more than tripled since the start of September. Daily hospitalizations have also tripled over the same period. Nearly 20 percent of Wisconsin’s COVID-19 tests are coming back positive.
...
The first and perhaps most consequential of these skirmishes came in the spring, when the Legislature’s Republican leaders filed a lawsuit arguing that Evers’s “safer at home” order would leave the state’s economy “in shambles” — even though it was no stricter than dozens of other shelter-in-place orders in effect across the country. On May 13 the state’s Supreme Court, which was also controlled by conservatives, sided with the GOP and overturned the order. Evers was not pleased, telling CNN that the court’s ruling “puts our state into chaos.”

“Now we have no plan and no protections for the people of Wisconsin,” the governor said. “When you have more people in a small space — I don’t care if it’s bars, restaurants or your home — you’re going to be able to spread the virus. And so now, today, thanks to the Republican legislators who convinced four Supreme Court justices to not look at the law but [to] look at their political careers, I guess, it’s a bad day for Wisconsin.”