Print

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

[Greiger]

Maybe where you live it seems common sense and common knowlege.  But where I live it's the exact opposite.  Outside of some very vocal individuals who work at wal mart and like using their supervisory position to demean and ruin the lives of people who disagree, around here it seems common knowledge that people lean left.

That is why citations are important. Relying on anecdotal evidence is why anti-vaccination people are a thing despite the big study they love to cite being found to be skewed.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, Rusty's complete disbelief in evidence and citable sources make me think he's Donald Trump in disguise.  I suppose someone could confuse Trump's skin color with some forms of rust.

[smjjames]

@Rusty: It's good manners and contributes to the discussion to provide evidence (at the very least, where you're getting the idea from), as in data, when making claims like that.

[Draignean]

Just as a point of writing commentary on anything, unless you've got a nice bunch of supporting evidence, it's almost always a bad idea to use 'It's safe to say', 'it certainly is true', 'this is why', etc.

Very few of us here are professional political scientists. We're armchair generals at best, and we should treat each other as such. Sources are paramount, and speculation is speculation- nothing more or less. When we act like we're right because of 'common sense' or the arguments we perceive to exist, we're only doing a disservice to healthy conversation and speculation about the world.

Not serious example, "It's safe to say that, of all Bay12 members, Helgoland is most likely to have a communist Penis."

There's no empirical grounds to go either way on that one, and really nowhere to go if I say 'prove me wrong'. We can debate the nature of penises and communism all day and still be no closer to deciding if 'The Red Threat' is an apt nickname for Helgoland's genitalia.

"I think that, of all Bay12 members, Helgoland is most likely to have a communist Penis."

This makes it clear that this is my personal thought on the matter, and can easily be engaged with the question 'Why do you think that', which is excellent grounds to start a conversion.

Serious Example, from my actual thoughts.

I think that, in order to vote, you should have to pass a competence exam on the absolute facts of the most relevant issues facing the nation. I know, there's a shitload of horribad kinks that come with that, notably having the effect of potentially rigged exams that would disproportionately hedge out the lesser educated, but goddamn do I get tired of people throwing around real weight with only emotional reasoning and no understanding of what their power means.

[TempAcc]

Helgoland confirmed for the carrier o exotic STDs, more at eleven.

[misko27]

Very few of us here are professional political scientists.

One day, hopefull soon, I will be able to say "Speak for yourself."

[Playergamer]

I think that, in order to vote, you should have to pass a competence exam on the absolute facts of the most relevant issues facing the nation. I know, there's a shitload of horribad kinks that come with that, notably having the effect of potentially rigged exams that would disproportionately hedge out the lesser educated, but goddamn do I get tired of people throwing around real weight with only emotional reasoning and no understanding of what their power means.

man you don't understand.

but goddamn do I get tired of people throwing around real weight with only emotional reasoning and no understanding of what their power means.

welcome to humanity. i got here a few years back and it's not great, but it's home.

i don't want to be a downer but seriously, on a good day 1/100 humans actually comes up with their beliefs based off of rational, reasonable thought, and 1/1000 humans act on those beliefs. everybody else is acting on in-grouping and emotion.

good post though draig.

help i'm turning into lordslowpoke

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sure, don't need any sources, citations or evidence until it contradicts the local echo chamber.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

Maybe I should expand on the data and break it down by income level, percentage of party affiliation, vehicle registration data, ect. I'll come back next and have a point to make.

I don't care either way about the Electoral College. There would be more democrats voting in republican-majority states and more republicans voting in democrat-majority states without it. The election results would probably be the same.

 The USA is more culturally homogeneous than its ever been, so it's hard to say people in one state are very different than people in another. It'd probably turn out about the same with or without the EC, but I feel like i'm talking to aliens trying to explain that the USA votes for it's grand overlord by the votes of each subjectgated phesudo-nation state rather than direct democracy. I don't know why the concept of an Electorial College is so difficult to understand. I bet if Clinton lost the popular vote and won the electorial college, nobody here would be talking about it.

There comes a point where asking for citations or evidence on a very basic point, is just demonstrating that you are uneducated and/or uninformed on the subject, It's not my job to educate anyone. If the argument I make is bullshit and you know it, then call me out and prove me wrong. Otherwise don't ask me to take my time to find something to prove an obvious point just because you don't like the implications of it.

[smjjames]

If Clinton lost the popular vote but won the EC, I'm pretty sure that the conservatives would bring it up as much as possible.

This situation actually happened with Bill Clinton, but for different reasons.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If Clinton lost the popular vote but won the EC, I'm pretty sure that the conservatives would bring it up as much as possible.

This situation actually happened with Bill Clinton, but for different reasons.

Absolutely the right wing would be complaining miserably if Clinton lost the popular vote but won the EC, but nobody complaining about it now would be. 'Oh the EC was designed to keep demagogue populists like Trump out of office!' Ect.

[redwallzyl]

Regardless, the EC is the implication of individual states voting a candidate, due to the USA being 'united states' and governed as such not a monolithic federal entity.

Eliminating states rights in the manner that the EC is eliminated probably means rewriting the constitution.  Which probably means a civil war, depending on who you talk to.

Anyways, it's pretty safe to assume if everyone was forced to vote, was able to vote, Trump would have won. Rural areas that support guys like that have less access to voting polls than do voters in dense urban areas or suburbs.

we already have other parts of the government for federal balance we don't need the president to be as well. besides the systems has nothing to do with it and does noting about it. people claiming it does are just showing a total ignorance of the entire history of the thing and what it is and how it works. states don't have anything near the kind of difference between them as some people seem to think as well and weren't drawn to any kind of constant standard like distracts are, supposed to be, making the whole idea of balancing the election of one person on it ridiculous. you want federalized presidential elections? your going to need to draw new huge voting districts for it nationally. that makes infinitely more sense.

also a federalized election for one person makes no sense when there is not a popular vote one as well to balance it out and we cant have two executives some of the time when they don't match that's crazy. your advocating for a more lopsided system over a much less lopsided one. most of the stuff the federal government does are for everything so they should and do have both sides represented. but the executive cant be.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I hate this kind of response because one it either forces me to research, and do some kinda rigor or it means the responser knows I'm right but does'nt have any academic data either, but put the burden of proof on me.

That's because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

If it wasn't, it'd be established fact that there's a teapot orbiting the sun.

I didn't say anything as controversial as that obviously. Anything anyone says is debatable sure but it's asinine to demand a damn peer-reviewed academic study for any mundane statement you say on an internet forum.

Regardless, the EC is the implication of individual states voting a candidate, due to the USA being 'united states' and governed as such not a monolithic federal entity.

Eliminating states rights in the manner that the EC is eliminated probably means rewriting the constitution.  Which probably means a civil war, depending on who you talk to.

Anyways, it's pretty safe to assume if everyone was forced to vote, was able to vote, Trump would have won. Rural areas that support guys like that have less access to voting polls than do voters in dense urban areas or suburbs.

we already have other parts of the government for federal balance we don't need the president to be as well. besides the systems has nothing to do with it and does noting about it. people claiming it does are just showing a total ignorance of the entire history of the thing and what it is and how it works. states don't have anything near the kind of difference between them as some people seem to think as well and weren't drawn to any kind of constant standard like distracts are, supposed to be, making the whole idea of balancing the election of one person on it ridiculous. you want federalized presidential elections? your going to need to draw new huge voting districts for it nationally. that makes infinitely more sense.

Oh boy yeah we should gerrymander the whole country regardless of state lines. That'd be better and different than the EC.

If you've been around the country and talked to people, yeah there is cultural homogeny and also major differences. Somewhat like arguing the US should annex Canada and have thejr autonomy taken away because they're so much like Americans that we can vote for them just ad well as if they could vote for themselves.

[sluissa]

Edited prior post, but it's on a previous page now. Sorry it took so long, I got distracted but I did find this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/ Which if you crank it all up to 100% turnout then you get a solid 332 EC votes for Clinton. Granted, I acknowledge this is only one source, but I tend to respect Nate Silver in his statistical rigor.

EDIT: I spoke too quickly. Default numbers are 2012 exit polling not 2016 polling. Brb with corrected numbers.

I am having a hard time finding actual 2016 numbers divided by demographic to plug into that thing. (Not exit polls or other sorts of polling.)

[Descan]

It's also decidedly *not* an uncontroversial fact, at any rate. For starters, disenfranchised urbanites Are A Thing that Exist. And not everyone in the city has cars, and not every city has good public transit. Getting around at a reasonable pace is not an "obvious thing" in the city.

[Loud Whispers]

It's also decidedly *not* an uncontroversial fact, at any rate. For starters, disenfranchised urbanites Are A Thing that Exist. And not everyone in the city has cars, and not every city has good public transit. Getting around at a reasonable pace is not an "obvious thing" in the city.

One finds that although everything one might need to find in order to live within the city may be within reasonable distance, one will subsequently find the congestion involved in so many people densely packed together traveling at the same time renders traveling considerably more difficult than walking through an empty field of identical size. The roads traveled are smaller, but they're full of beeping cars. If they lack streetlights, they are unsafe after dusk.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's also decidedly *not* an uncontroversial fact, at any rate. For starters, disenfranchised urbanites Are A Thing that Exist. And not everyone in the city has cars, and not every city has good public transit. Getting around at a reasonable pace is not an "obvious thing" in the city.

They didn't have cars or public transit when the system was put in place either. People walked, and if you lack transportation its easier to get to a polling place in a city than if you live in the wilderness or countryside.

Which is almost irrelevant anyways. People generally don't get to a polling place because they are busy at work or with other obligations or don't care enough to take the time.

Which boils downcto transportation. In a city it takes less time out of your day, generally.

Election Day should probably take place on a weekend or at least be a federal holiday. It being on a teusday is a worse and more relevant throwback to ancient times than 'oh electorial college is because of slavery'.

Problem is both parties feel like they benefit from elections held during the workweek and they both feel they have a lot of idle unemployed voting demographics to disporportionally turn the tides in their favor opposed to if the actual labor force was allowed to vote. So nothing will ever be done about that. Their entire campaigning strategies revolve around most working age adults being too busy to cast a ballot.

So anyways, imo, apathy and elections being held during the workweek is more an issue than the EC which at least has a sort of reason to be implimented.

Can't do much about apathy. I'm informed about politics and haven't voted since 2004 because holy shit how can you feel good about putting a person like Clinton or Trump or Bush or Obama or Romney into a position of power?