SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Authoritarian leaders are seen as far more trustworthy than politicians in more openly democratic countries across the emerging world, according to data compiled by the World Economic Forum.
Leaders in Singapore, the Gulf states and Rwanda are rated as having the highest ethical standards in the emerging markets, closely followed by their Chinese and central Asian counterparts.
In contrast, politicians in democracies such as Brazil, Paraguay, Nigeria, Mexico and Romania are seen as exhibiting the lowest ethical standards.
Overall, among the 20 emerging market countries rated as having the most trustworthy politicians in the 2016 survey, 13 are rated as "not free" by Freedom House, a US government-funded non-governmental organisation, with three classed as partly free and just four classed as free.
Among the 20 emerging markets whose politicians are seen as having the lowest ethical standards, not one is classed by Freedom House as not free, with six free and 14 partly free.
https://www.ft.com/content/79d1ce36-8ca9-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731
Might be paywalled, but I got in using my normal combination of noscript, self-destructing cookies, and referrer spoofing (from google.com).
Text without charts: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2016/10/1823541-polls-show-low-approval-of-the-ethical-standards-of-leaders-in-latin-america.shtml
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:44AM
"
voter suppression, right. First, we gerrymander districts to include only minorities, then we suppress those minorities? Somehow, that just doesn't add up. The gerrymandering alone is enough to ensure that the minorities get only a couple seats in congress, and minority voters outside of those gerrymandered districts don't count anyway.
Voter suppression. Right, got it."
Uh, yeah, that kinda defines it. Thanks for the support.
Nice goal post relocation skills ya got there by the way!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:55AM
I hear that goalpost nonsense from time to time. The thing is, if you focus on one tiny part of a problem, you don't see the "big picture". There's no need to suppress the vote in a district that has already been allocated to the minorities, nor is there any need to suppress the vote in districts where the minority vote is nil. The public is once again being misdirected from a real issue, to a non-issue.
The real issue is, the voting mechanism should be so secure that no one can cast a fraudulent vote. The mechanism should be so secure that hacking into it and/or manipulating the tallies is near impossible. And, there should should be an accountability trail, a verifiable count, which no one can dispute.
How in hell do we do a recount, when there is nothing to count? Oh, but, here again blind faith steps in. <sarcasm> Computers are fast and accurate, they can't count wrong. </sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:35AM
While I agree they should be better. There will never be a system so secure that fraud can not happen at all.
You started to narrowed topic of voter fraud, and only expanded it to gerrymandering when I called you out thereby deflecting from what I stated so as not to answer to proof of widespread voter fraud and essentially 'moved the goalposts.' So it is a valid observation.
Gerrymandering is voter suppression and it makes it even easier to do as is puts them in a group that can be easily targeted, as Mike Pence has done in Indiana.
Thanks again for proving me correct.
Still waiting on evidence of widespread voter fraud in a national election.
That was your original accusation.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:57AM
Here is a reasonable evaluation of voter fraud - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ [washingtonpost.com]
Now, the thing is, it doesn't need to be "widespread" to be concerned about it. This year, I test the waters, to see if I can get away with it. Next year, I run a larger test. Then, if everything works, in the 20xx presidential election, I really turn the machinery up, and decide the election.
If we could be certain that not more than one or two people voted fraudulently in each voting district across the nation - we might decide it isn't important enough to prosecute. But, if one person gets away with it this year, next year ten, the next year 100 - it's easy to see where that leads.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom - and the guy who coined that phrase wasn't talking about active duty military alone.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:02AM
So, you post proof the system works, at least in this case.
You're on a very slippery slope. You failed to cite your statement and instead, cite my statement exactly.
Voter fraud in a national election is so rare as to be non-existent.
Dude if 14 years worth of data that shows essentially nothing has you running scared, you need help.
This discussion is quite confusing. You show evidence that disproves your original statement and supports my assertion. You then use some very convoluted logic to try to make a speculation that could happen. However, your original statement quite clearly asserted that it was already happening.
Damn, have a hit man...got a g of fine ass Bodhi High Honey Oil, cleanest around!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:44PM
"so rare as to be non-existent"
Because it is rarely PROVEN that voter fraud has occured, then we shouldn't even bother about voter ID's and such.
Voter fraud exists. People try to game every system. It doesn't seem very prevalent - is that because it doesn't happen much, or is it because we seldom catch the perps? The Republicans are the ones who want verifiable photo ID presented at all elections, and Democrats don't want that. This tells me that the Dems probably hope to manipulate an election.
Tell me something - how many elections was it necessary for Adolph Hitler to manipulate?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:57PM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/10/19/2121211 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday October 21 2016, @10:11AM
I reserve judgment until I can see the unedited version. O'Keefe is the one who selectively edited the abortion scandal tapes.
So the filmmaker here is discredited, and as far as I can tell refuses to release the raw footage.
That speaks volumes.
And of course I believe it likely happens on a small scale in a national election, but widespread takes way too many people in cahoots with each other. And a secret can only be kept indefinitely if only two people know, and one is dead.
As far as Hitler goes...Germany is what, approximately 85% the size of California? (At that size it takes far fewer people but I think cities and municipalities of smaller size would be and have been more effective targets.) He didn't have to throw an election. Two elections put the Nazis in power and Hindenburg had no choice but to place him as Chancellor as they had the majority. The closest thing to fraud would of been Heinrich Brüning, who tried to, through concessions to the Nazi party, avoid direct elections and extend Hindenburgs term. He obviously failed.
The Wiki article is quite fascinating. I had forgotten most of the details since High School is now nearly forty years in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932 [wikipedia.org]
Reasonable voter ID laws I have no problem with. But if you have a disenfranchised group, and you put them these laws in place with no assistance to help those obtain said ID, then you are suppressing votes. My DL is good enough here. As is a State ID. But we have our ballots sent and we drop them off at designated places like the library, and other drop off points are everywhere, which is another thing I see used to suppress. Early closing times and limited access to cast votes. Voter suppression I feel is a much more effective way to throw an election. After all, actual fraud has a tendency of showing itself.
The earliest American voter fraud accusations I recall (next to impossible to google, a zillion pages of Trumps allegations and I got tired of looking 15 pages in trying to find some history) were between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans (long before the parties split) around IIRC 1790 or so. These allegations are as old as voting itself, and yeah, it has happened at times. However, keeping the concerns alive is a good thing, as it makes us wary, I just see no evidence of it on a widespread scale, and as long as we're discussing it and do our upmost to keep it in check, I think we'll be ok.
I vote policy, not personality. Republican policy hasn't existed in years...proof of six years controlling both houses and they are the most ineffective congress ever. Also I find three things that make me never vote republican.
1. The injection of Evangelical beliefs into their lawmaking I find to be very disturbing. I will never vote in favor of Theocracy. We are a secular country and I want to see it stay that way.
2. The Norquist pledge.
3. The backroom deal to block any Democratic proposal, regardless of merit, to make Obama a one-term president, putting their loyalties to the party rather than We The People.
And yes, I know the history and all the warts both parties carry, but a choice is to be made. We have managed the two most vile candidates I can remember. A viable third party would be nice, socially liberal and financially conservative (yes, I do smoke too much weed...hahaha). Our current third parties are both too shallow for me to have much interest in. Libertarians are just Republicans with gay friends who smoke pot, and the Greens are too focused.
I don't like the current Democratic Party either, however their platform (if only they would stick to it..sigh...) is closer to my beliefs than the current Republican Party.
1968 (George Wallace/Richard Nixon/Hubert Humphrey) 1964 (Barry Goldwater/Lyndon Johnson) are kind of similar in having multiple shitty candidates. We survived them, we'll survive this....at least I hope so!
Well enough for tonight, off work, time to get a buzz on and play some Kerbal Space Program...See ya!
I wish you a fine day.
**personal note, off-topic**
Is that your birth year in your pseudonym? Only asking as it would make us of similar age....1959 here.
Again a fine day to you.