Print

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

[Playergamer]

Aye. It's a good point, but I'd definitely note that, perhaps (probably?) unfortunately, the boycott is likely going to functionally delegitimize the vote even if the numbers are actually in statehood's favor regardless, if properly analyzed. Kinda' sketchy when looked at that way, honestly. Opponents of full statehood haven't so much won the vote as short-circuited appraisal of it. Kinda' spits on our electoral systems, y'know?

Situations like these is exactly why referendum validity should be determined by percentage of total people that voted for the winning side instead of the percentage of people that voted.

So a referedum is valid if 25% of people vote yes or no instead of 50% of people voted in total.

Or whatever percentage you want that to be.

I mean...not really, no. People who don't vote due to apathy shouldn't be automatically included on the "no" side. It's a good sentiment, but some things can't really be fixed. Just need to hope people don't try to delegitimatize elections they're going to lose.

(oh i accidentally used caps, sorry.)

[Frumple]

Oh hey, didn't notice if this was mentioned earlier. Apparently the craven shits in the GOP senate lineup have decided (no clue about that particular site, mind, but it shouldn't be difficult to find others if you care to) they feel like trying to bypass most of the traditional scrutiny congressional bills pass through, for their health care disaster bill.

Because nothing says good faith and strong policy like avoiding every ounce of attention and disclosure possible, of course.

[MrRoboto75]

Why is the GOP Health Care bill called health care if it doesn't care?

[misko27]

Or it may just be simpler than that. Trump may just have the memory of a metaphorical goldfish. (Because real goldfish have decent memories.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/14/want-to-change-trumps-mind-on-policy-be-the-last-one-who-talks-to-him/

What's hilarious is I made this exact point somewhere else on the interwebs.

I remember that one story of that Democrat politician who talked to Trump about some industrial plan that was his pet project. Trump loved it. Reince, (Or maybe it was a congressional leader who spent his career fighting things like that, I'll find the original story), was forced to agree with Trump and take it into consideration.

Why is the GOP Health Care bill called health care if it doesn't care?

The American Health Don't Care Act doesn't roll off the tongue quite as much.

[hector13]

GOP Don't Care Act.

[tribalism]Pretty much what all Republican legislature should be called, amirite[/tribalism]

[EnigmaticHat]

Aye. It's a good point, but I'd definitely note that, perhaps (probably?) unfortunately, the boycott is likely going to functionally delegitimize the vote even if the numbers are actually in statehood's favor regardless, if properly analyzed. Kinda' sketchy when looked at that way, honestly. Opponents of full statehood haven't so much won the vote as short-circuited appraisal of it. Kinda' spits on our electoral systems, y'know?

Situations like these is exactly why referendum validity should be determined by percentage of total people that voted for the winning side instead of the percentage of people that voted.

So a referedum is valid if 25% of people vote yes or no instead of 50% of people voted in total.

Or whatever percentage you want that to be.

To be honest as long as the referendum was done with the same basic integrity as an election, it should automatically count as legit.

Its kinda like the crowd that wanted to have a second referendum on Brexit.  What's the point of having a referendum as part of the democratic process if you selectively ignore the results?  Say what you want about Brexit (which I won't because seriously wrong thread) but on a bureaucratic level, had referendum, did what referendum said.  Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

[redwallzyl]

Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

Political stunt for support because no one thought it would happen.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The bigger problem is that if you legitimize electoral boycotts, the losing side will always do them and then claim illegitimacy. This sort of thing could actually, literally, destroy democracy if people buy into it.

[EnigmaticHat]

Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

Political stunt for support because no one thought it would happen.

Well yes but that's the wrong way to use the tool.

The point is that while Brexit was questionable as a decision (again, wrong thread), the actual way the referendum was handled was good.  Not having a referendum would also have been valid, but having one and then ignoring the result or trying to delegitimize their own referendum, that would be a mistake.

[Strife26]

The bigger problem is that if you legitimize electoral boycotts, the losing side will always do them and then claim illegitimacy. This sort of thing could actually, literally, destroy democracy if people buy into it.

The losing side claiming the election is illegitimate isn't a particularly rare occurrence, and doesn't seem to be any more democracy destroying than various other general threats.

[Sheb]

Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

Political stunt for support because no one thought it would happen.

Well yes but that's the wrong way to use the tool.

The point is that while Brexit was questionable as a decision (again, wrong thread), the actual way the referendum was handled was good.  Not having a referendum would also have been valid, but having one and then ignoring the result or trying to delegitimize their own referendum, that would be a mistake.

Although to be fair, the referendum was explicitely made legally non-binding.

[Frumple]

The losing side claiming the election is illegitimate isn't a particularly rare occurrence, and doesn't seem to be any more democracy destroying than various other general threats.

... yeah, but there's claiming and then there's 3/4ths of the electorate not showing up, some significant amount basically out of spite or to intentionally undermine the vote, y'know?

[hector13]

Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

Political stunt for support because no one thought it would happen.

Well yes but that's the wrong way to use the tool.

The point is that while Brexit was questionable as a decision (again, wrong thread), the actual way the referendum was handled was good.  Not having a referendum would also have been valid, but having one and then ignoring the result or trying to delegitimize their own referendum, that would be a mistake.

Although to be fair, the referendum was explicitely made legally non-binding.

True, but no politician, however anti-Brexit, will use that argument because it's akin to saying "well, you're too stupid to have chosen the right thing so we're just going to ignore you."

The bigger problem is that if you legitimize electoral boycotts, the losing side will always do them and then claim illegitimacy. This sort of thing could actually, literally, destroy democracy if people buy into it.

The losing side claiming the election is illegitimate isn't a particularly rare occurrence, and doesn't seem to be any more democracy destroying than various other general threats.

Depends on context, really.

PPE: ninja'd by Frumple, so n'mind.

[EnigmaticHat]

No one should ever invalidate or ignore their own referendum (unless there was some kind of serious accusations of foul play).  The problem with doing so is that everyone is going to be wondering: if the referendum had come up the way you want, would you have followed it then?

In the case of Puerto Rico, our little colony is such an inconvenient political problem that you bet your ass if the referendum came up against statehood Americans would never, ever hear about Puerto Rico again.

[Reelya]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/megyn-kelly-slammed-for-interview-with-truther-alex-jones/news-story/e4dd35f42345d295afe4949e0415f403

Megyn Kelly is getting flak because of her having Alex Jones as an upcoming guest on her show. She says it's relevant because Trump praised Jones, and Infowars now has a Whitehouse press pass.

Although Kelly does challenge some of his views. What do you think of the pros and cons of giving Infowars mainstream access to promote their views?