Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

A majority voted Clinton. That is a simple fact.

That the minority is more whiney then usual is completely unrelated to that.  You just are anti democracy when you lose. Which is to say you are anti democracy because that is the only time it matters.

You're conflating results with intent. A majority may have voted for her, but did a majority WANT to vote for her? As Rolan7 himself illustrated, he voted for Clinton but would have preferred another choice. It's that dissatisfaction with the proffered choices that he's talking about.


If an airline only offers chicken and fish for the in-flight meal, does that mean that nobody likes beef? And if you would prefer a nice steak, but settle for the dry-ass chicken because it's better than starving, does that mean you really *want* chicken? No, it only means you'd prefer it to that nasty-ass fish because seriously....how fresh can seafood be at 30,000 feet?

By your analogy, consumers clamoring for more dining options from the airline hate democracy because they already have a choice.
s.

EDIT: @MSH -- Yeah, I don't have high hopes for things getting done in a Clinton presidency, unless there's a wholesale liquidation of the GOP in Congress. You thought 60+ grandstanding votes on Obamacare was a waste of time? How bout the 114th consecutive Benghazi inquiry? Congress will literally just sit around all day trying to come up with a way to impeach her. The saddest part is that they won't even come up with new and novel ideas, they'll just keep trying the same shit over and over again, like tiny Field Marshal Haig's.

[Frumple]

... have you actually checked to see clinton's platform regarding environmental protection, rol? She does actually have incentive to care about the environment, and it's called the democratic party, among other things.

And no, it's not an illusion of representation. You get out what gets put in. If you're not getting enough out, y'got some work to do to get more folks to put in. Yeah it sucks when your pet issue gets kinda' shat on, but that's how majorities work. If you don't have the support, that both agrees that something needs to be done and how to go about it, you're not going to get much out of a democratic system. Unfortunately, environmental stuff only has the first part of that, at best.

And track it, msh. If you think fuckall is going to be done, look and see. I'd wager better than half, myself, and most of the rest not due to lack of trying.

[mainiac]

Yeah, I'm sure any of that shit will materialize once she's elected, or if the way things are going.

All gonna fucking die in the climate crisis.

The epa regs will continue at bare minimum and probably strengthen. She don't need Congress for that.

[Rolepgeek]

Yes, because the King of [insert country] cared about those before he was forced to. And yeah, there certainly were nobles who cared and abided by it, but there's not much in the way of teeth, not reliably enough to be comfortable in that security. The Thirty Years war certainly took those into account (not being sarcastic either), and shit still got burned down plenty.

Well now you are in a whole other century.  How about I point out that your daughter isn't safe in her bed because the Barbary pirates kidnap white women and make them sex slaves?  Or how the feds love to burn down cities in Georgia these days.

What point are you trying to make here, Mainiac. I already brought up the Hitler example from within a century. You wanna look at the Congo? Stalin? Mao? How aboutHussein? No? You think dictatorship is all good and fine for human rights? You think shit changes magically because time has passed? Human nature does not change, mainiac. There are dick jokes written by Romans found in pompeii. The same complaints about the youth not listening to their elders and how it was all better back when I was a kid have been written by Egyptians thousands and thousands of years ago, as have complaints about how all stories have already been told.

If you're just arguing for the sake of being contrarian, I would ask you to use a better argument than reductio ad absurdum.

Ah... maybe.
I live in NC so maybe I'm distracted by the bad.

Beware of typical mind. :/

Maine has put forth the question of Ranked Choice Voting. Other states are doing their own stuff, one bit at a time (which I say mostly because I remember other states doing similar-ish things but not which states doing which things >.>).

But then, I choose to be optimistic, so perhaps I just choose not to believe in the doomsday proclamations made by every generation before me and this one as well. Most of them have been false, but maybe the Mayans were just off by a decade. *shrug*

@Reelya: I dunno about you, but I vote for more than the President. I vote for senators and representatives too, in federal and state legislature. And yeah, they nominate people who haven't been elected. But that's the balancing act. It doesn't function well with entirely elected officials, because their incentives are different. But the president certainly isn't everything, and the cabinet doesn't run everything. No, they don't always nominate the best people. But I do think that Charisma is God-stat, that choosing a Supreme Court Justice via popular vote is a poor idea. Neither, it seems to me, is having them appointed by one person in as split a political environment

Congress is involved in rather a lot, even if they've been ineffective lately.

[Max™]

Yeah uh, anybody talking about "carbon" and suggesting Bernie would be better should be aware he is a moron who bought into anti-nuclear fearmongering, and somehow thinks reducing the only long-term source of stable energy (because wind and solar need buffers, and we all can't or don't want to live near a hydroelectric plant) is going to help anything.

Lots of good ideas, lots of hokey ideas, and a few really dumb positions which clash directly with other things he supposedly stands for.

[mainiac]

You think dictatorship is all good and fine for human rights?

I said I thought that it wasn't even close when you compare democracy to autocracy.  I just think you are reducing the middle ages to a silly caricature.  My intent was to show the extent to which you were blurring the lines.  The events you were talking about were as foreign to the people of the century in question as the barbary states are to us.

Maine has put forth the question of Ranked Choice Voting

Ugh, ranked choice is a horrible system.  If we are going to reform it should be a good reform.

[WealthyRadish]

Maine has put forth the question of Ranked Choice Voting

Ugh, ranked choice is a horrible system.  If we are going to reform it should be a good reform.

It seems preferable to what we have now. I know there are some issues where whackjobs occasionally get in because everyone hates the biggest parties (and people feel bregret over their choices), but it'd be a huge boost for third party vote share and I think would significantly increase voter turnout as well. Third parties suck right now, but they aren't going to get better by sitting on the fringe forever.

A boost in third party representation should also mean a greater focus in congress on issues (instead of the sort of intrigue and power strategy that emerges in a duopoly), and should make gerrymandering a lot more difficult. What do you think would be a better reform, within the realm of possibility?

[Mephansteras]

Yeah, but 3rd parties aren't going to be a viable choice for president in general unless the rules of the Electoral college change. Right now the President requires a majority of Electoral Votes to become president, not just more than anyone else. Bumping up the strength of 3rd parties without changing how the electoral college works is just going to make it much more likely that Congress gets to pick the president, which is hardly an ideal situation.

I'd be happier if the entire electoral college system was thrown out. It's doesn't do a good job of really representing everyone and it's main impetus (slow communications) hardly applies any more.

[mainiac]

It seems preferable to what we have now. I know there are some issues where whackjobs occasionally get in because everyone hates the biggest parties (and people feel bregret over their choices), but it'd be a huge boost for third party vote share and I think would significantly increase voter turnout as well. Third parties suck right now, but they aren't going to get better by sitting on the fringe forever.

Or third parties continue to suck because everyone who cares about getting shit done adopts either the D or R label.

A boost in third party representation should also mean a greater focus in congress on issues

Suuuure.  It's impossible to get Dems and Reps to agree but it'll be easy if you throw some greens and constitutions in the mix.

[Baffler]

A boost in third party representation should also mean a greater focus in congress on issues

Suuuure.  It's impossible to get Dems and Reps to agree but it'll be easy if you throw some greens and constitutions in the mix.

The idea, I think, is to get each party's share to be small enough that the current model of "get the majority in the senate and push things through unilaterally" won't be an option anymore.

[penguinofhonor]

But isn't that still what happens in 3+ party systems? Just with two big coalitions instead of two big parties.

[mainiac]

If you want many small parties the answer isn't ranked ballot, it's proportional.  And proportional is better in all other regards too.

But isn't that still what happens in 3+ party systems? Just with two big coalitions instead of two big parties.

+1

[Mephansteras]

But isn't that still what happens in 3+ party systems? Just with two big coalitions instead of two big parties.

Yes, but I would think that it would give people a little more information on who they're specifically voting for, wouldn't it?

While you might end up with coalitions that are basically the Democrats & Republicans, you'd have a better idea of where your candidate stands based on which smaller party they're part of.

Probably wouldn't make a huge difference with the President, but would make congressional and state positions more specifically targeted to what their local demographics want.

I imagine our European friends could say more about how it works in practice.

[penguinofhonor]

I mean, I can already tell who I'm voting for by listening to them talk. And state elections are already tailored to what the local demographics want - you're probably not going to find many Vermont democrats that are pro-life and pro-coal, but Kentucky democrats have to have those stances because that's what the people here care about.

I guess there could be some small benefits to more specific labeling, but people are talking about this theoretical system like it's going to significantly change how congress runs and I do not see that.

[Loud Whispers]

*cough*Not the right thread for it but I think LW might have something to say about one*cough*
Whoa, sorry, had something stuck in the BRack of my throat that can't find an exit.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• Biggest money wins 9/10 times, 10% is not grounds for despair, it is the Jeb Bushes of the world who make politics worthwhile
• Leaders and followers with stamina are equally important, the longer an issue goes on, people get exhausted and just want it to fucking end
• Don't be smug, only pepes can be smug without ruining elections
• Trust in the good nature of voters, voters don't like being treated like shit, and if you lose you don't end up living in a country with people you believe need gulags
• Saturation media coverage can be worthless if no one believes the media, social media engineering is worthless if it motivates people who don't vote
• To the victors goes the spoils

The absolute U-turn in media coverage and in the statements of actions of politicians from the UK to even the European Nations was remarkable, not on the event of Remain getting defeated, but on the event of Osbornites getting systematically replaced by May's men

Heck, May herself is a great example, if Remain had won she would be remembered as one of the ministers who campaigned for Remain successfully, whereas now she will be remembered as the PM who executed ready Brex

It is interesting to see how RW media outlets switched from anti-Trump to pro-Trump when it became apparent they were stuck with him, or any TyT video where gorillions of Bernies are calling them Shillary sellouts for backing the winning horse

So basically
1. Win
2. If can't win, waste the winners money
3. Beware if the winners have access to your money
4. If all else fails, gorilla campaigning, to achieve #2 or to achieve #1 w/ reduced cost
Alternatively peeps in power can treat their opponents fairly, but in Darwinian politics, parties that do so get replaced by those that don't help their opponents

Also if you depair and grow disillusioned for your (x) cause, why give up? You've got nothing to lose, all to gain

Yes, but I would think that it would give people a little more information on who they're specifically voting for, wouldn't it?
While you might end up with coalitions that are basically the Democrats & Republicans, you'd have a better idea of where your candidate stands based on which smaller party they're part of.
Probably wouldn't make a huge difference with the President, but would make congressional and state positions more specifically targeted to what their local demographics want.
I imagine our European friends could say more about how it works in practice.

In my local constituency you can vote for:

• Liberal dems, social progressives, economic liberals
• Labour, social progressives, economic liberals but w/ social welfare and shit
• Greens, social progressives, don't know what the economy is

You do get to know what your local parties stand for, and can also know what your local candidates are, and a good point perhaps to its success is that regularly pollsters get everything fucking wrong
Helps move away from the sort of campaigning where "you are afro-caribbean, therefore you are red", then the reds get embarrassed when everything goes yellow. Most importantly, when the established two horses get complacent, the edgy small parties bring the edge to their throats - most significantly with Libdems, SNP and UKIP taking in mad voteshare from Labour and Conservative in their "established strongholds", with voters not liking being treated as "safe seats" for politicians

Helps avoid that situation where all the mechanisms for citizens to hold their leaders accountable exist but bear no teeth because all the citizens don't want the wrong lizard to win