Topic: Democracy's Party (Read 107 times)

Like I said, it's just a big party. Look at what happens when you try to act honestly in California. Do you really want Cabala to get IN?


California Man Arrested For Showing I.D. To Vote

---

https://babylonbee.com/news/california-man-arrested-for-showing-id-to-vote
Authorities said Justin Davis arrived at the voting location at around 9:00 A.M. and presented his driver's license to horrified poll workers who immediately called the police to report the blatant act of racism.

"There's no place for this type of lawlessness in California," said Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson Sgt. Paul Marquez. "We received a tip that there was a man showing his I.D. to vote here, which is a brazen violation of California law. Our officers arrived quickly to apprehend this monster. I'm just glad we were able to get him off the street before he could show his identification to anyone else. This place just keeps getting more dangerous."

When reached for comment, California Governor Gavin Newsom cited this latest incident as a perfect example of why voter I.D. laws should never be allowed. "Just look at the harm this man caused," Newsom told reporters. "Here he is — obviously a dangerous right-wing white supremacist — walking into a polling location and showing his I.D. Such bigotry will not be tolerated on my watch. We will continue to strive to make California a place where nobody knows who is voting, whether they can legally do so, or what happens to anyone's ballot after it's been cast. That leads to free and fair elections — the California way."

At publishing time, Justin Davis had been charged with hate crimes, found guilty, and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences.
...

---

It would mostly depend on the electoral rules of the country and whether there is some article within the constitution of Brazil which tackles such problems when comes to an overwhelming percentage of people not voting.
To me, those who decide to make their vote null in purpose in order to show disapproval for both candidates should still be taken in consideration and oust both candidates of their nominations in the case of the majority of the people does not approve them.
Democracy should not be about choosing the lesser of two evils, but rather filter out those who do not get approved by the people and pave the way for actual politicians whom the people of the country have faith in.

It is clear that the electorates don't have confidence in the candidates which was why most votes were voided. But they have to now understand that it is not the best solution. In such elections where you don't have any preferred candidate, you would have to choose the lesser evil among them. It is important to do that because with or without your votes one candidate must emerge the winner. In my country, the number of void votes is not taken into account. The focus is basically on who has the highest number of votes.

Legend says that if 50% of total voters null their votes by hitting random numbers on the poll machine, a new election with new candidates must take place.

However, I have a slight memory that it has already happened once in one of Brazilian cities in a previous election, but nothing happened. The most voted candidate still got elected, even though more than 50% of the voters nullified their votes.

I think something exceptional could happen only if the overwhelming portion of voters didn't vote. Something around 80% - 90%.

The Democrats have degraded now, it's not Obama with his program and results.

What are the latest forecasts? Who is winning?

Communists who support LGBT and blm are very funny.

I would call it the "democratic-communist Party"

One more reason why some people see democracy as the worst form of government.

In any system where majority votes wins, boycotting the election is never the solution to whatever their problem is. Now they absent themselves from the election and still end up with a winner whom they might not like. In cases like this,participate in the process and choose who you consider a bit better.

But is election like this not going to be nullified? What happened to getting 25% of the total voters in a particular region before one is declared a winner? Aren't we practicing the same democracy?

I knew there local elections going on in Brazil, but I had no idea there was such a dramatic situation in the biggest city of the continent.
Since we are talking about democracy as a system and how it is supposed to be handled for the good of population in general, in my opinion there must be some rule out in place to do something when the null votes are a significant percentage when they are compared to those which counted in electing the winning candidate. What about if there was some ruling on repeating the election with different candidates, until the null votes are not as many... ?Because, it is clear that democracy does not mean anything if the people is not satisfied with the result of the process, rather than helping society, results like this one tend to create division within populations.
Now the best case scenario would be the winning candidate winning people over, but that is unlikely. There is not much sense of legitimacy in the election of this mayor.

Democracy won. And they had a party doing it.       

Brazil just had its final round of the elections today to choose mayors for some of its cities. There is a common expression mainstream here loves speaking proudly called "Festa da Democracia" (or Democracy's Party) to refer to this biennial event.

However, it's a complete illegitimate fiasco if we take the results of the biggest city of Brazil, and also America Latina, which is São Paulo:

Winner had 3.393.110 votes.

Second place had 2.323.901 votes.

Abstentions and null votes added: 3.605.433 votes.

The candidates are rejected by the largest portion of population. The real winner here is the rejection to all of them. But it doesn't matter for the system. Democracy won!