Today...

[RpgGamer]

Lol watermelon vote. Bernie 4 Lyf. #feelthebern

[Skull]

Still have to switch to Democratic party so I can vote for Bernie in the Primary.  Of course Connecticut is essentially worthless when it comes to voting but I'm still a strong proponent of voting so I'm going to do it anyways as always.

 

No clue why I registered as independent in the first place, all it does it make it so I can't vote in any primary.

[Saru Inc]

I luckily had the good fortune of my parents (meaning my father) teach me how to drive. Although he got me a few lessons with an instructor in a car with an extra brake on the passenger's side first because I guess he didn't quite trust me just in case.

 

 

Yay@

 

Driving is soooo funnnnnn.

 

Also: all driver's ed cars have the extra brake. They don't trust anyone ;) I wouldn't either.

 

Driving really isn't that hard, but most drivers have absolutely terrible situational awareness. (Even though mirrors provide most of that for you - as long as you look.)

[obfuscator]

Are you allowed to be in multiple parties in the states?

 

Here you can be in as many parties as you want. I think currently I'm a member of three.

[Veiva]

Are you allowed to be in multiple parties in the states?

 

Here you can be in as many parties as you want. I think currently I'm a member of three.

No. Even better, the nomination process is different per state.

 

In some states, the nomination process is "open." That is, you don't need to register your affiliation to vote in the primaries.

 

In others, you are only able to vote in the primary of your party. In essence, this makes "independent" affiliation completely stupid, because you can't vote in any primary.

 

Note: primaries are to decide who (or what, if we suppose most politicians are reptiles, har) the party will support. Currently, Clinton will probably win the Democratic primary, while some "moderate" Republican will win their respective primary. Any candidates who didn't snag the support of their party and didn't get chosen as the running mate will either run as independent candidates or drop out, though the outcome is the same in either case: they become irrelevant.

[Arceus]

It probably varies by state like everything else, but my impression was yes, they are exclusive, by the parties' own volition. If you're the Republican party, you don't want a Democrat acting as saboteur in your primaries, so this is blocked in at least some states.

[Skull]

Are you allowed to be in multiple parties in the states?

 

Here you can be in as many parties as you want. I think currently I'm a member of three.

There's really only two parties here (that have any official representation at least), so no.

 

Like Veiva said, some states allow you to vote in a primary without being a registered member of the party (or maybe only independents can vote in both, I'm not sure).  Most however, like my own, require you to be registered to the party that you're voting in the primary of, making Independent an idiotic choice, since you effectively prevent yourself in having any say in which candidate you want to receive the nomination.

 

However, if I were registered as a Democrat I could still vote Republican in a general election. I just would't be able to vote for my preferred Republican candidate in their primary.  So if Bernie Sanders didn't receive the nomination and I preferred the Republican candidate over Clinton, I could still vote for them.

 

Edit: I personally think that not having open primaries is stupid.  I imagine that there would be some issue of trying to sabotage the "opposing" party's primary but I think that of the people who would actually go to both primaries, most would doing so because there's a candidate from both that they're interested in.

[RpgGamer]

The electoral college picks the president so it's almost as if your vote doesn't matter anyway #murrica

[Bonez899]

Hmm, so no I half want to study abroad. Except for the fact that doing so could be supper complicated as the program I am interested in would have me working a full-time job in addition to my schooling which could make visas a bit of a pain.

 

Or not. Apparently Canadians are so close to being Americans that we don't need Visas to study or work in the US and just need the appropriate paper work ready and to declare your intent at the border. Just in case anyone here needs to know.

[jasignhagj]

You definitely can't just show up in the US and work. The process might be a bit easier for Canadians but it's still a pain.

[obfuscator]

There is the TN visa which is pretty easy to get.

[Bonez899]

You definitely can't just show up in the US and work. The process might be a bit easier for Canadians but it's still a pain.

I'm sure you would need proof of a job, but you don't have to preapply for a visa. You just go to the border with the right paperwork and declare your intent.

[obfuscator]

 

You definitely can't just show up in the US and work. The process might be a bit easier for Canadians but it's still a pain.

I'm sure you would need proof of a job, but you don't have to preapply for a visa. You just go to the border with the right paperwork and declare your intent.

 

That sounds like the TN visa, but that's only for business purposes as far as I know.

[Bonez899]

 

 

You definitely can't just show up in the US and work. The process might be a bit easier for Canadians but it's still a pain.

I'm sure you would need proof of a job, but you don't have to preapply for a visa. You just go to the border with the right paperwork and declare your intent.

That sounds like the TN visa, but that's only for business purposes as far as I know.

I'm not sure. I emailed the consulate in regards to a student visa and they replied that as a Canadian we do not need a visa to cross the border, just necessary paperwork. I can guarantee this in regards to student visa. Not positive if work visas go this way but I couldn't really find anything on work visas.

[stevepole]

I think the idea that in the primaries when you can only vote for your party's candidate is that non party members can't intervene with another parties selection. Of course there is also the write in option where you can vote for whomever at any stage. I may be wrong on that last bit, but I'm tired, so w/e, and I need more tequila. 

[obfuscator]

I think the idea that in the primaries when you can only vote for your party's candidate is that non party members can't intervene with another parties selection. Of course there is also the write in option where you can vote for whomever at any stage. I may be wrong on that last bit, but I'm tired, so w/e, and I need more tequila.

I wonder how big of a problem that would actually be? Here you're allowed to vote in any number of leadership/candidate nominations for any number of parties. I suspect any sabotage going on is pretty minimal. Then again, politics are slightly less polarized here.

[Arceus]

I feel like it would be a major issue with (the USA's current) two party system. Things are very different when you get two choices instead of an indefinite number - for example as I understand it, even if you win a small percentage of the votes as a party in some of these systems, you still get x % of the seats in the parliamentary body.

[obfuscator]

I feel like it would be a major issue with (the USA's current) two party system. Things are very different when you get two choices instead of an indefinite number - for example as I understand it, even if you win a small percentage of the votes as a party in some of these systems, you still get x % of the seats in the parliamentary body.

That's not how it works here. There are certainly more parties (20 in Canada as opposed to 8 in the states), but we're still using a standard FPTP system, so you actually need to win a riding to get elected. At the moment there are six parties with at least one seat in the house, but only three major parties.

[Veiva]

Voter fraud is a boogeyman, be it the presidential election or primary selection. It's a non-issue. At best, it's used to hurt lower income households, preventing them from voting (requiring state ID, which can be pretty difficult to get, either due to costs or simply the need to visit the DMV [transportation, time off work, so on]).

 

Election fraud is a serious problem, however. Interestingly enough, gambling machines have incredibly stricter security standards, as well as government oversight and required transparency. Goes to show that money is more important than who is elected into political offices (be it legislative, executive, or judicial).

 

I'd also like to note that many states make it harder for people to vote simply by not offering protections to employees during elections. Say you have work during voting hours in North Carolina (my wonderful [much sarcasm in this term] state of residence), and your employer refuses to let you take time off: uh oh, you can't vote without risking your job! And since the majority of low-wage employees have little say in their schedule, they have to choose between maintaining their position at work or voting. What a country.

[obfuscator]

I'm inclined to agree that voter fraud is probably not a widespread issue, but I think it's entirely reasonable to expect people to prove they are who they say they are when they're carrying out an important civic responsibility.

 

Here you can get a health card with photo on it for free, and I suspect that would suffice as ID.

[The Observer]

Using the excuse of voter fraud is a joke; it's a non issue. Especially when the federal party had several instances of election related offences (robo calls, etc). They're instituting voter ID requirements here too, which hurts First Nations (Indian Status cards aren't acceptable) and low-income families.

[obfuscator]

Using the excuse of voter fraud is a joke; it's a non issue. Especially when the federal party had several instances of election related offences (robo calls, etc). They're instituting voter ID requirements here too, which hurts First Nations (Indian Status cards aren't acceptable) and low-income families.

How does it hurt low income families or first nations when they can get photo id for free?

 

Once again: It is completely reasonable to expect people to be able to prove they are who they say they are when carrying out an important civic duty. No one complains about having to provide ID to buy alcohol, but ask people to do it to vote, and shit hits the fan? Ridiculous.

[Arceus]

 

Using the excuse of voter fraud is a joke; it's a non issue. Especially when the federal party had several instances of election related offences (robo calls, etc). They're instituting voter ID requirements here too, which hurts First Nations (Indian Status cards aren't acceptable) and low-income families.

How does it hurt low income families or first nations when they can get photo id for free?

 

Once again: It is completely reasonable to expect people to be able to prove they are who they say they are when carrying out an important civic duty. No one complains about having to provide ID to buy alcohol, but ask people to do it to vote, and shit hits the fan? Ridiculous.

 

Because for a low-income family with both parents working hard to try to provide even food to eat for dinner, "Let me go out today and get a photo ID!" is very low on the list of priorities. And even if you do, it's not exactly the easiest thing to get done.

 

It's also funny how advocates can't manage to find any cases of voter fraud, if it were that big of an issue...

[The Observer]

 

Using the excuse of voter fraud is a joke; it's a non issue. Especially when the federal party had several instances of election related offences (robo calls, etc). They're instituting voter ID requirements here too, which hurts First Nations (Indian Status cards aren't acceptable) and low-income families.

How does it hurt low income families or first nations when they can get photo id for free?

 

Once again: It is completely reasonable to expect people to be able to prove they are who they say they are when carrying out an important civic duty. No one complains about having to provide ID to buy alcohol, but ask people to do it to vote, and shit hits the fan? Ridiculous.

 

Alcohol isn't really a necessity nor a right.

 

I think I'm speaking mostly from anecdotal evidence on the low income part. When my mother had her purse stolen a few years back, it took over a year for her to get her ID back. First of all, she had to pay to get her birth certificate back in order to get her health card back. Then, she had to use all that to get her Photo Card back (thankfully this was instituted because she doesn't have a driver's licence). The same thing happened to my father (except it took him 2 years because he didn't have the money to pay for a birth certificate, so was stuck without a health card for that long).

 

In terms of First Nations, there is actually a greater level of difficulty in obtaining photo ID such as a health card. In the past, voter ID cards (mailed out) and Indian Status card were acceptable forms of ID.

 

Not to mention the lack of information being given about it. Let's say you live in a remote part of Canada, you would assume to vote as per normal before being turned away for not having sufficient identification (again, First Nations). 

 

There's also more issues surrounding this election such as Elections Canada not being allowed to encourage people to vote on election day, etc. (No ads for when to vote like there used to be.)

[obfuscator]

Because for a low-income family with both parents working hard to try to provide even food to eat for dinner, "Let me go out today and get a photo ID!" is very low on the list of priorities. And even if you do, it's not exactly the easiest thing to get done.

That's ridiculous. A good chunk of jobs require id in and of themselves. You don't even need "Photo" id to vote. See here: http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=id&document=index&lang=e

 

There are about 40 different ways to prove you are whom you say you are.

 

It's also funny how advocates can't manage to find any cases of voter fraud, if it were that big of an issue...

I personally know of at least one case of voter fraud.

 

 

Alcohol isn't really a necessity nor a right.

78% of Canadians reported drinking last year. Contrast that with election turnouts (60%) and more people buy alcohol than vote. My point is, requiring identification is not an onerous requirement for the vast majority of Canadians.

 

I think I'm speaking mostly from anecdotal evidence on the low income part. When my mother had her purse stolen a few years back, it took over a year for her to get her ID back. First of all, she had to pay to get her birth certificate back in order to get her health card back. Then, she had to use all that to get her Photo Card back (thankfully this was instituted because she doesn't have a driver's licence). The same thing happened to my father (except it took him 2 years because he didn't have the money to pay for a birth certificate, so was stuck without a health card for that long).

Although that situation sucks, it's A) a tiny minority of people who would have this issue, and B) I doubt it was that important to them. Money paid through social assistance programs should be more than sufficient to pay for getting identification if that was prioritized by the recipient.

 

In terms of First Nations, there is actually a greater level of difficulty in obtaining photo ID such as a health card. In the past, voter ID cards (mailed out) and Indian Status card were acceptable forms of ID.

See the link I provided above. There are a multitude of different ways to be identified.

 

Not to mention the lack of information being given about it. Let's say you live in a remote part of Canada, you would assume to vote as per normal before being turned away for not having sufficient identification (again, First Nations).

Every time I deal with the government, or applying for anything, period, I research what information I need to provide in order to do so. Common sense.

 

There's also more issues surrounding this election such as Elections Canada not being allowed to encourage people to vote on election day, etc. (No ads for when to vote like there used to be.)

Elections Canada is supposed to be non-partisan. Avoiding all advertising helps them maintain that standard, since advertising is targeted by nature and could involve perceptions of them being partisan.