SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ spokesman, Michael Briggs, on Monday issued the following statement:
“It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.
“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.
“Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump.”
dimejinky99 wrote:On polling day here it's illegal to have any posters or campaign related staff within 100 yards of the polling station
That would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment here.
I'm pretty sure we have similar restrictions. It's why you can't wear your Bernie Sanders t-shirt to the polls. You can just get closer than 100 yards here.
Yeah but it makes sense too. Last year in the marriage equality referendum we weren't even allowed wear yes equality badges into the polling station.
Also, and this will blow your minds over there, we have a 24 hour moratorium on polling day. News on tv and radio and talk shows etc are not allowed talk about the election of candidates. Think it applies to news'paper outlets too. I know that idea might be insane to an America in the middle of a primary but that one day is a relief given the months of endless coverage and the weeks of autopsy coverage afterwards
Last edited by dimejinky99 on Tue June 07, 2016 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Your T-shirt example (and dime's example of badges, which is the same thing) is an interesting and close case. Like I said, I think reasonable restrictions directly on the property of the polling stations can be made. But wearing a message of advocacy is a pretty passive act, and I'm inclined to think it's passive enough that it should be protected under the First Amendment.
Here's another interesting example (the picture really says it all):
The school was named Benjamin Franklin Elementary School. If a school had been named after Obama, could it had been barred from hosting a polling station when he's a candidate? There are already schools named after Bill Clinton, can they host a poll when his wife is a candidate?
Flip that on you. 99% of polling stations in Ireland are in school gym halls. 90% of schools here are under Catholic Church patronage. They nearly refused to allow the schools halls to be used for a referendum on gay marriage.
We have a democracy based in the ideas of a republic but the church even now still think they can call the shots.
dimejinky99 wrote:Flip that on you. 99% of polling stations in Ireland are in school gym halls. 90% of schools here are under Catholic Church patronage. They nearly refused to allow the schools halls to be used for a referendum on gay marriage.
Churches are also common polling places here, though nowhere near 90%, and remember that we also have an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. My thought would be that as long as there's no advocacy in plain sight, it's OK to use churches as polling stations. But I also listed some examples above that are tough calls.
To be honest, we should just largely do away with polling stations altogether and mail in ballots instead. But of course that'll get pushback from the vote suppression crowd...
We tried the electronic voting thing here. At huge expense. They were never used even once. Some faction pushed against it. Same faction fighting against votes from overseas/those that have emigrated. It suits the old guard here to have as few people engaged as possible. They've held onto power for the last 80 years In This way. Can only imagine it's the same your side.
dimejinky99 wrote:We tried the electronic voting thing here. At huge expense. They were never used even once. Some faction pushed against it. Same faction fighting against votes from overseas/those that have emigrated. It suits the old guard here to have as few people engaged as possible. They've held onto power for the last 80 years In This way. Can only imagine it's the same your side.
That's correct, there's been a wide array of laws passed like demanding ID at the polls.
During the civil rights movement of the 1960s there was a law passed called the Voting Rights Act that included a provision demanding that certain states (mostly Southern ones) had to preclear any election changes with the Department of Justice. A few years ago, the Supreme Court, on typical partisan lines, declared that formula unconstitutional. I don't think it was unconstitutional, but I do think that we ought to just make all states subject to preclearance. Here was that case:
dimejinky99 wrote:We tried the electronic voting thing here. At huge expense. They were never used even once. Some faction pushed against it. Same faction fighting against votes from overseas/those that have emigrated. It suits the old guard here to have as few people engaged as possible. They've held onto power for the last 80 years In This way. Can only imagine it's the same your side.
That's correct, there's been a wide array of laws passed like demanding ID at the polls.
During the civil rights movement of the 1960s there was a law passed called the Voting Rights Act that included a provision demanding that certain states (mostly Southern ones) had to preclear any election changes with the Department of Justice. A few years ago, the Supreme Court, on typical partisan lines, declared that formula unconstitutional. I don't think it was unconstitutional, but I do think that we ought to just make all states subject to preclearance. Here was that case:
dimejinky99 wrote:We tried the electronic voting thing here. At huge expense. They were never used even once. Some faction pushed against it. Same faction fighting against votes from overseas/those that have emigrated. It suits the old guard here to have as few people engaged as possible. They've held onto power for the last 80 years In This way. Can only imagine it's the same your side.
That's correct, there's been a wide array of laws passed like demanding ID at the polls.
During the civil rights movement of the 1960s there was a law passed called the Voting Rights Act that included a provision demanding that certain states (mostly Southern ones) had to preclear any election changes with the Department of Justice. A few years ago, the Supreme Court, on typical partisan lines, declared that formula unconstitutional. I don't think it was unconstitutional, but I do think that we ought to just make all states subject to preclearance. Here was that case:
Some of the same states taking black and poorer voters off the register or making it difficult for them to even register though right?
I don't recall seeing evidence that electronic voting or voters id laws did anything like that. IMHO, what causes legitimate (and likely intentional) disenfranchisement is the requirement to vote on a single work day. That disproportionally effects lower income workers who don't have the luxury of being able to take time off to vote.
Alex wrote:i wonder what the supermassive jackhole broken iris would have thought about this
