Print

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

[WealthyRadish]

Voter apathy in the US to some extent mirrors the ineffectiveness of voting. In congressional elections in particular, only around a quarter of races are competitive, usually only being a rubber stamp until His Lordship the Incumbent retires/dies or the districts are reapportioned (at which point the election is settled by a primary with even more abysmal turnout). Your vote dies in your district, so any surplus of votes in favor of the winning candidate does zilch, just as any vote for the doomed party in that district does absolutely nothing. This means that nationally, most of the votes cast in congressional elections have no effect whatsoever.

Since the districts themselves are massive (~700,000 people was the average the last apportionment shot for, but some go over a million) there is effectively zero chance for a third party candidate to win any federal election. Congressional elections would be the "easiest" for a third party candidate to win, but campaigning effectively enough to win a plurality of votes in a district as large and chimerical as the congressional districts is nearly impossible.

Independents can still win, but almost always only by starting as a party incumbent and leaving it, and this is increasingly rare:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The electoral college is in some ways even worse, because in most states the entire state becomes a winner-takes-all district, leading to even more glaring inaccuracies and vote-wasting, but ultimately it's the congressional elections that have the most impact on the party structure as a whole.

[Karnewarrior]

Just making people aware that their congressman exists and is making policy decisions is probably a good first step. Tbqh I'm not sure I would recognize all the congressmen from Florida, and I'm pretty politically active. 

[EnigmaticHat]

The stats show that enough people went "well, I don't particularly like Hillary, and I definitely don't like Trump, so I'll [not vote/vote third party], because that'll mean that neither wins".  (Well, certainly the first part of the logic comes from the stats and direct from people here and elsewhere. The "because" part is perhaps only true for an unknowable fraction, but is true for some, as I've seen it all but said. Before the voting took place and even after the result became known.)

The fact is that Hillary did at least bad enough to let Russian "hacking" and Russian hacking tip the scales in Trump's favor.

The stats show the exact opposite of that.  Name one president who won the popular vote for their first election (AKA not an incumbent) and was widely hated at the time of the election.  And then I'll name twenty who weren't.

Edit: Even ignoring the fact that all US intelligence agencies say the Russians hacked our election, and all evidence since the election points to the fact that the Russians could have directly altered voter rolls or even votes in multiple sates.  So her 3 million vote victory is almost certainly an understatement.  We'll also ignore the fact that the most damning criticism Bernie supporters had of the DNC was that young people were getting purged from voter rolls and I wonder why that happened.  No, even without that, every analysis I've ever read says that Comey re-opening the investigation on an election night where many swing states were voting handed Trump the election.  So she was hacked by the Russians, sabotaged by the FBI director, and probably still would have won if our voting machines weren't compromised.

[Rowanas]

none of any of this is unique to America, and I think I'm done voting in general. I've never had the result I wanted from any vote I've ever placed.  Apparently democracy is not for people like me.  I'm not sure if i'm worried or overjoyed that this system means that anyone like me who wants to make their voice heard will have to resort to more extreme measures.

[scriver]

The stats show that enough people went "well, I don't particularly like Hillary, and I definitely don't like Trump, so I'll [not vote/vote third party], because that'll mean that neither wins".  (Well, certainly the first part of the logic comes from the stats and direct from people here and elsewhere. The "because" part is perhaps only true for an unknowable fraction, but is true for some, as I've seen it all but said. Before the voting took place and even after the result became known.)

The fact is that Hillary did at least bad enough to let Russian "hacking" and Russian hacking tip the scales in Trump's favor.

The stats show the exact opposite of that.  Name one president who won the popular vote for their first election (AKA not an incumbent) and was widely hated at the time of the election.  And then I'll name twenty who weren't.

Spoiler: Relevant image. (click to show/hide)

[Karnewarrior]

The stats show that enough people went "well, I don't particularly like Hillary, and I definitely don't like Trump, so I'll [not vote/vote third party], because that'll mean that neither wins".  (Well, certainly the first part of the logic comes from the stats and direct from people here and elsewhere. The "because" part is perhaps only true for an unknowable fraction, but is true for some, as I've seen it all but said. Before the voting took place and even after the result became known.)

The fact is that Hillary did at least bad enough to let Russian "hacking" and Russian hacking tip the scales in Trump's favor.

The stats show the exact opposite of that.  Name one president who won the popular vote for their first election (AKA not an incumbent) and was widely hated at the time of the election.  And then I'll name twenty who weren't.

Edit: Even ignoring the fact that all US intelligence agencies say the Russians hacked our election, and all evidence since the election points to the fact that the Russians could have directly altered voter rolls or even votes in multiple sates.  So her 3 million vote victory is almost certainly an understatement.  We'll also ignore the fact that the most damning criticism Bernie supporters had of the DNC was that young people were getting purged from voter rolls and I wonder why that happened.  No, even without that, every analysis I've ever read says that Comey re-opening the investigation on an election night where many swing states were voting handed Trump the election.  So she was hacked by the Russians, sabotaged by the FBI director, and probably still would have won if our voting machines weren't compromised.

Not a single shred of evidence points towards the voting machines being tampered with. Yes, the US intelligence officials concluded that the Russians employed a variety of methods in an attempt to sway the outcome of the election. They also concluded that their efforts were unsuccessful, and that the amount of votes altered by the Russians would not have altered the electoral results.

If you want more details on election hacking, you can read this. Only one state was actually confirmed to have been hacked, and they verified that no actual votes were altered.

That is not to say that future elections could not be hacked- it's a very real possibility. We do know, however, that 2016 was not one of those elections.

A lot of the "hacking" was more along the lines of Russians memeing though. A lot of divisive fake news on facebook designed to be passed around by people too lazy to check the facts or too enamored of one side or the other to care that they were spreading propaganda, as long as it was their propaganda. Photoshops of liberals ripping up the constitution or shitting on flags or such.

None of that is historically tracked by the FBI and such because it was never a big issue before, but we don't know how many people it swayed. Just going off of my family in particular though, it probably swayed quite a few - there was a lot of hate (IS a lot of hate) on facebook from my family members, some of whom KNOW they're spreading photoshopped and fake news and just don't care because "it's true in principle".

A lot of that probably exaggerated the Hillary hate beyond what it would be normally, but it's a very soft method and wouldn't have worked if Hillary was actually easily likable. Russians pushed her from Granny Weatherwax to Stalin, but it would have been much harder if she had been a Vietnari, you get me?

[Starver]

The stats show the exact opposite of that.

In what *I* said, I was dealing with the basic figures, as we got them. Even if those figures were roughly massaged by heavyweight ex-Olympic hammer-throwing babushkas, there were still apparently enough active votes for "neither" (not counting the reported no-votes from abstainees) that did nothing to help any purportedly preferred 3rd-party and would (however close, and whichever way, the main-two-candidate vote went) have done nothing to stop either of the "neither"s from winning.

Shenanigans might have made Trump the winner of the coin-toss/biased-interference, but those who would not vote for Hillary formed a ghostly part of the key majorities that Trump did get. Ok, so residents of more-than-safely-R places and more-than-safely-D places who went elsewhere in their ballot were probably just as ineffectual as everyone else (each as an individual!) in those places. But in places that became (with or without meddling) key marginals in Trump's flavour, they were each a half-vote for Trump (and outnumbered their counteroarts who became half-votes for Clinton, IIRC).

[EnigmaticHat]

The stats show that enough people went "well, I don't particularly like Hillary, and I definitely don't like Trump, so I'll [not vote/vote third party], because that'll mean that neither wins".  (Well, certainly the first part of the logic comes from the stats and direct from people here and elsewhere. The "because" part is perhaps only true for an unknowable fraction, but is true for some, as I've seen it all but said. Before the voting took place and even after the result became known.)

The fact is that Hillary did at least bad enough to let Russian "hacking" and Russian hacking tip the scales in Trump's favor.

The stats show the exact opposite of that.  Name one president who won the popular vote for their first election (AKA not an incumbent) and was widely hated at the time of the election.  And then I'll name twenty who weren't.

Edit: Even ignoring the fact that all US intelligence agencies say the Russians hacked our election, and all evidence since the election points to the fact that the Russians could have directly altered voter rolls or even votes in multiple sates.  So her 3 million vote victory is almost certainly an understatement.  We'll also ignore the fact that the most damning criticism Bernie supporters had of the DNC was that young people were getting purged from voter rolls and I wonder why that happened.  No, even without that, every analysis I've ever read says that Comey re-opening the investigation on an election night where many swing states were voting handed Trump the election.  So she was hacked by the Russians, sabotaged by the FBI director, and probably still would have won if our voting machines weren't compromised.

Not a single shred of evidence points towards the voting machines being tampered with. Yes, the US intelligence officials concluded that the Russians employed a variety of methods in an attempt to sway the outcome of the election. They also concluded that their efforts were unsuccessful, and that the amount of votes altered by the Russians would not have altered the electoral results.

If you want more details on election hacking, you can read this. Only one state was actually confirmed to have been hacked, and they verified that no actual votes were altered.

That is not to say that future elections could not be hacked- it's a very real possibility. We do know, however, that 2016 was not one of those elections.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna850296
Literally the first result I got on Google.

As for the form and effectiveness of Russian hacking, I’m on my phone so I’ll keep it short by my standards.  Its not just memeing.  Its manufacturing divisive news articles and using getting them to the top of google/other search engines using SEO.  Its finding journalists and swing voters and exploiting ad algorithms (for example FB let’s you send ads as narrowly as to one person) and exposing them to content that will change what they say to other people.  Its possible to send Ohio democrats political ads about Hillary being too liberal and Ohio Republicans ads about her being too conservative and neither will ever see the other’s ads.

More to the point its using botnets and trolls to create the illusion of concensus, an illusion you guys are still buying despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Bumber]

Its possible to send Ohio democrats political ads about Hillary being too liberal and Ohio Republicans ads about her being too conservative and neither will ever see the other’s ads.

I don't think Democrats would believe that she's too liberal.

[Egan_BW]

I feel like the lines are muddled enough that that might actually be a viable strategy. Same with convincing Republicans that your opponent is too conservative.

[Bumber]

I feel like the lines are muddled enough that that might actually be a viable strategy. Same with convincing Republicans that your opponent is too conservative.

In some ways she's more conservative than Trump. Draining the swamp, and all that.

[Egan_BW]

Who?

[Bumber]

Who?

Trump wants to drain the swamp, which isn't particularly conservative.

Clinton is better acquainted with the politics of Washington, and less inclined to dramatic change to get things done.

[ChairmanPoo]

I smell a lock

[Kagus]

I smell a lock

Nonsense, the Russians have vehemently denied contracting warlocks to meddle in the election. There was even an article about it in RT, and they're a pretty unbiased network all in all.