Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There's ugliness in political campaigns? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Breaking news! This just in, the Sun is hot.
This is politics, boys and girls, it's not pretty and this election is just down right fugly. Get over it. Look at the candidates for what they bring to the table and their platforms for taking us forward. Political maneuvering and tactics aren't for everyone, but it comes with the territory, so please, once again, get over it.
It's okay to do bad stuff because other people do bad stuff: The Post
You're not even addressing what I said. "Bad stuff", not bad, who's subjectivity are we using here? There's a need for everyone to come to grips with the fact that politics is bare knuckles. Holding politicians feet to the fire because they're maneuvering to win? What a waste of time. It's called a campaign for a reason. It's very much like a war and yeah, it's not all rainbows coming out of a unicorn's ass. All this false shock is ridiculous and is so over the border of naïve that it's dangerous. Furthermore to my point, it's not going to mean jack once one of the two candidates is elected. At that point, the campaign is irrelevant and his or her action is all that matters. That possible action, must be viewed from the policies outlined by the candidates as to what they want to see happen and that, at this point, should be the focus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'm skeptical the GOP will carry through on that threat. They're already taking the bulk of the flak for congressional grid lock. Let them continue. Soon none of them will be in office, because the only thing voters hate more than shady politicians are politicians who sit in office doing nothing.
The problem is that too many of them are gerrymandered. Getting some of them out will be harder than prying ticks out of a country hound's ass.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 01:59:37
Why Ranked-Choice Voting Makes Sense By Greg Orman
October 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaigned earlier this week in Florida with former Vice President Al Gore. The Clinton camp is hoping that showcasing the apostle of climate change will help Hillary persuade millennials to think cosmically on Nov. 8. It wants disaffected voters, particularly young, progressive-minded Americans, to resist their inclination to vote for a third party or independent candidate.
Specifically, Clinton wants to remind people that Ralph Nader’s campaign in Florida robbed Gore of his chance to be president. Clinton’s implied argument is that if you vote for someone with no chance of winning, you will risk electing the person you like the least. She is effectively saying that a vote for an independent in a close race is a wasted vote that has the potential to spoil the election.
There is strong logic to that argument, and Florida was the right place to make it. In 2000, Nader’s vote total in Florida of 97,488 was far more than the 537-vote difference between Gore and George W. Bush. While some of these voters might have sat out the election, presumably a majority of them would have cast their ballots for Gore if their choices had been limited to only the two major party candidates.
Herein lies a central problem with our system of government that is dominated by the two major parties: In many cases, we feel forced into voting for someone whom we consider the lesser of two evils. Often voters disregard their real preferences because they want their vote to matter. I’ve described this as having to choose between shingles and the flu. Millions of Americans dutifully do their patriotic duty every couple of years, swallow the virus they deem to be the least distasteful, and then go home lamenting the limited choices that we have. With two presidential candidates struggling with the highest negative ratings in the history of presidential polling, this has never been more clear to Americans.
What if it weren’t this way? What if Americans could vote for the candidate they most love instead of voting against the candidate they most fear? For voters in Maine, this is no longer a hypothetical question. On Election Day, they will have the chance to enact “ranked choice” voting, a method of voting allowing them to rank candidates for political office in order of preference, first choice through last choice. When the votes are totaled, if no candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold based on first place votes, the last-placed candidate’s votes are re-allocated to their second choice. This process continues with the bottom vote getter being dropped until one candidate crosses 50 percent and is elected by a majority.
So how does this eliminate the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma? Let’s take the example on display this week—the Florida 2000 presidential vote. There were 10 candidates on the ballot. No one received more than 50 percent of the vote on the first ballot. Bush and Gore each received 48.8 percent of the vote. Nader received 1.6 percent, while all other candidates totaled 0.65 percent. Assuming every one of the voters who didn’t put Bush, Gore, or Nader as their first choice had listed Bush as their second choice, his vote total would have gone up to roughly 49.5 percent—still shy of the number needed to win. If all of Nader’s supporters had listed Gore as their second choice, he would have won the Florida vote with 50.5 percent.
In a ranked-choice election, the only way to waste your vote is to actually vote against a candidate. As long as the candidate you like least doesn’t reach the 50 percent threshold, they won’t win. So only positive votes matter. In the Florida example, a million additional voters could have listed Ralph Nader as their first choice instead of Gore. As long as they listed Gore as their second choice, Gore would have won Florida—and, with it, the presidency.
Ranked-choice voting effectively allows voters to vote their actual preferences instead of having to vote strategically. This would have a meaningful impact on elections and governing. It would empower independent and third party candidates by eliminating the “wasted vote” argument. If you’re a Libertarian who votes Republican because you dislike the Democrats, you can list the Libertarian as your first choice and the Republican as your second. If you’re a Green who votes Democratic because you dislike the Republicans, you can list the Green as your first choice and the Democrat as your second.
A ranked-choice system would force major party candidates to broaden their appeal to compete for second-choice votes. Candidates could only get elected by appealing to a majority of voters. Negative campaigning would likely decline as candidates would need to present positive images of themselves, not simply knock down another candidate, particularly with newly empowered independent candidates on the ballot. Crowded primary races could no longer be won by simply getting the votes of a quarter of the voters and alienating every other voter.
Importantly, it would also allow voters to send a very direct message to elected officials about their policy preferences. As an example, if the Green Party candidate received 20 percent of the first-choice votes in an election, it would be a strong signal to the winning candidate to take environmental issues seriously.
If there’s one thing this election has taught us, it’s that the rules matter. Ranked-choice voting is one rule change that the voters can make to give themselves more choice and a bigger voice in our government – and eliminate the need to pick the lesser of two evils once and for all. Maine has a chance to lead the nation to a better political environment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 04:29:02
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Why Ranked-Choice Voting Makes Sense By Greg Orman
October 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaigned earlier this week in Florida with former Vice President Al Gore. The Clinton camp is hoping that showcasing the apostle of climate change will help Hillary persuade millennials to think cosmically on Nov. 8. It wants disaffected voters, particularly young, progressive-minded Americans, to resist their inclination to vote for a third party or independent candidate.
Specifically, Clinton wants to remind people that Ralph Nader’s campaign in Florida robbed Gore of his chance to be president. Clinton’s implied argument is that if you vote for someone with no chance of winning, you will risk electing the person you like the least. She is effectively saying that a vote for an independent in a close race is a wasted vote that has the potential to spoil the election.
There is strong logic to that argument, and Florida was the right place to make it. In 2000, Nader’s vote total in Florida of 97,488 was far more than the 537-vote difference between Gore and George W. Bush. While some of these voters might have sat out the election, presumably a majority of them would have cast their ballots for Gore if their choices had been limited to only the two major party candidates.
Herein lies a central problem with our system of government that is dominated by the two major parties: In many cases, we feel forced into voting for someone whom we consider the lesser of two evils. Often voters disregard their real preferences because they want their vote to matter. I’ve described this as having to choose between shingles and the flu. Millions of Americans dutifully do their patriotic duty every couple of years, swallow the virus they deem to be the least distasteful, and then go home lamenting the limited choices that we have. With two presidential candidates struggling with the highest negative ratings in the history of presidential polling, this has never been more clear to Americans.
What if it weren’t this way? What if Americans could vote for the candidate they most love instead of voting against the candidate they most fear? For voters in Maine, this is no longer a hypothetical question. On Election Day, they will have the chance to enact “ranked choice” voting, a method of voting allowing them to rank candidates for political office in order of preference, first choice through last choice. When the votes are totaled, if no candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold based on first place votes, the last-placed candidate’s votes are re-allocated to their second choice. This process continues with the bottom vote getter being dropped until one candidate crosses 50 percent and is elected by a majority.
So how does this eliminate the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma? Let’s take the example on display this week—the Florida 2000 presidential vote. There were 10 candidates on the ballot. No one received more than 50 percent of the vote on the first ballot. Bush and Gore each received 48.8 percent of the vote. Nader received 1.6 percent, while all other candidates totaled 0.65 percent. Assuming every one of the voters who didn’t put Bush, Gore, or Nader as their first choice had listed Bush as their second choice, his vote total would have gone up to roughly 49.5 percent—still shy of the number needed to win. If all of Nader’s supporters had listed Gore as their second choice, he would have won the Florida vote with 50.5 percent.
In a ranked-choice election, the only way to waste your vote is to actually vote against a candidate. As long as the candidate you like least doesn’t reach the 50 percent threshold, they won’t win. So only positive votes matter. In the Florida example, a million additional voters could have listed Ralph Nader as their first choice instead of Gore. As long as they listed Gore as their second choice, Gore would have won Florida—and, with it, the presidency.
Ranked-choice voting effectively allows voters to vote their actual preferences instead of having to vote strategically. This would have a meaningful impact on elections and governing. It would empower independent and third party candidates by eliminating the “wasted vote” argument. If you’re a Libertarian who votes Republican because you dislike the Democrats, you can list the Libertarian as your first choice and the Republican as your second. If you’re a Green who votes Democratic because you dislike the Republicans, you can list the Green as your first choice and the Democrat as your second.
A ranked-choice system would force major party candidates to broaden their appeal to compete for second-choice votes. Candidates could only get elected by appealing to a majority of voters. Negative campaigning would likely decline as candidates would need to present positive images of themselves, not simply knock down another candidate, particularly with newly empowered independent candidates on the ballot. Crowded primary races could no longer be won by simply getting the votes of a quarter of the voters and alienating every other voter.
Importantly, it would also allow voters to send a very direct message to elected officials about their policy preferences. As an example, if the Green Party candidate received 20 percent of the first-choice votes in an election, it would be a strong signal to the winning candidate to take environmental issues seriously.
If there’s one thing this election has taught us, it’s that the rules matter. Ranked-choice voting is one rule change that the voters can make to give themselves more choice and a bigger voice in our government – and eliminate the need to pick the lesser of two evils once and for all. Maine has a chance to lead the nation to a better political environment.
Much as I think this would be a good thing (and honestly, we may potentially even be able to do away with primaries??), I doubt it will happen, simply for the fact that those who have power, would fear losing it. And this idea is no sure means of them keeping the power they have.
I've been to a couple of comedy acts that had some parts that talked about something important to me (religion) and which I found offensive. I did the only reasonable thing I could do: not laugh at those particular jokes. Then I laughed at all the parts that made fun of everybody else.
People make fun of people, that's the point of comedy. Sometimes you are the butt of the joke. If you don't like that, don't go to comedy shows.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/18 05:22:27
Yeah he's just megalomaniac who think's he's always right with serious anger issues. He could decide to settle Syria by ordering Putin to leave the country and when Putin refuses gets angry and orders strike.
Trump is unpredictable nuts. Out of the 2 candinates he's the one more likely to get in war with...Well anybody.
Here is an excellent op-ed from Rolling Stone. I won't quote it because it is very long and you can read it with photos for free on the Rolling Stone site.
As well as being an awesome piece of prose writing, it gives a gloomy but I feel realistic picture of the political pickle the USA finds itself in.
And for some light-hearted moments during this election:
My favorite part:
Spoiler:
Randy: Do you have any awards or commendations?
Obama: I have almost 30 honorary degrees, and I did get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Randy: Oh really, what was that for?
Obama: To be honest, I still don't know.
Yeah he's just megalomaniac who think's he's always right with serious anger issues. He could decide to settle Syria by ordering Putin to leave the country and when Putin refuses gets angry and orders strike.
Trump is unpredictable nuts. Out of the 2 candinates he's the one more likely to get in war with...Well anybody.
Sure he is unpredictable, but Hillary is a predictable warhawk that is saber-rattling hard against Russia.
Yeah he's just megalomaniac who think's he's always right with serious anger issues. He could decide to settle Syria by ordering Putin to leave the country and when Putin refuses gets angry and orders strike.
Trump is unpredictable nuts. Out of the 2 candinates he's the one more likely to get in war with...Well anybody.
Sure he is unpredictable, but Hillary is a predictable warhawk that is saber-rattling hard against Russia.
Sabre-rattling is not the same as drawing said sabre and using it. If it were then we'd all have died in 1962.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
No, he's very defensive about Russia, whilst pretty offensive about everywhere else.
Indeed. Why all this assumption that Russia is the only other power that can lead to WW3? China is doing some pretty major sabre-rattling and they are also a nuclear nation. Trump hasn't been anywhere near as soft about China as Russia so why aren't we worried about the man whose solution was to arm other nations in that area with nukes?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/18 11:27:53
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yeah he's just megalomaniac who think's he's always right with serious anger issues. He could decide to settle Syria by ordering Putin to leave the country and when Putin refuses gets angry and orders strike.
Trump is unpredictable nuts. Out of the 2 candinates he's the one more likely to get in war with...Well anybody.
Sure he is unpredictable, but Hillary is a predictable warhawk that is saber-rattling hard against Russia.
Trump already has said USA has nukes and why not use them...
He apparently asked 3 times why they can't use nukes, in a meeting with heads of military. As in, he just didn't seem to understand why nuking people was a bad thing.
That's so much more of a threat than some US:Russia sabre rattling I don't even know where to begin.
No, he's very defensive about Russia, whilst pretty offensive about everywhere else.
Indeed. Why all this assumption that Russia is the only other power that can lead to WW3? China is doing some pretty major sabre-rattling and they are also a nuclear nation. Trump hasn't been anywhere near as soft about China as Russia so why aren't we worried about the man whose solution was to arm other nations in that area with nukes?
I'm pretty sure if there was a WW3 it'd be triggered by China or North Korea (who seem to be doing a lot of sabre rattling and missile tests) rather than Russia.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 11:50:01
No, he's very defensive about Russia, whilst pretty offensive about everywhere else.
Indeed. Why all this assumption that Russia is the only other power that can lead to WW3? China is doing some pretty major sabre-rattling and they are also a nuclear nation. Trump hasn't been anywhere near as soft about China as Russia so why aren't we worried about the man whose solution was to arm other nations in that area with nukes?
Because both the US and Russia are currently in Syria, which makes it more likely tensions would rise between the two.
Yeah he's just megalomaniac who think's he's always right with serious anger issues. He could decide to settle Syria by ordering Putin to leave the country and when Putin refuses gets angry and orders strike.
Trump is unpredictable nuts. Out of the 2 candinates he's the one more likely to get in war with...Well anybody.
Sure he is unpredictable, but Hillary is a predictable warhawk that is saber-rattling hard against Russia.
Trump already has said USA has nukes and why not use them...
Clinton hasn't threatened using nukes. Trump has.
US policy doesn't rule out the use of nukes and Hillary has said there are situations when she would be willing to use nukes, not to mention she is constantly antagonizing one of the biggest nuclear powers.
This of course doesn´t make Trump a good candidate, he still a despicable joke that would probably antagonize a different bunch of states, but lets no pretend that there is a good candidate in this race.
Here is an excellent op-ed from Rolling Stone. I won't quote it because it is very long and you can read it with photos for free on the Rolling Stone site.
As well as being an awesome piece of prose writing, it gives a gloomy but I feel realistic picture of the political pickle the USA finds itself in.
That was a pretty good piece.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Supposedly Trump invited a Benghazi widow to the last debate.
Seriously?
I'd say Hillary now needs to invite all the female accusers, plus all his previous wives, BUT
We need to stop the crap and act like Presidential candidates (now HRC did actually start this with Cuban) Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 13:50:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Supposedly Trump invited a Benghazi widow to the last debate.
Seriously?
I'd say Hillary now needs to invite all the female accusers, plus all his previous wives, BUT
We need to stop the crap and act like Presidential candidates (now HRC did actually start this with Cuban)
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
They can have that dufus of an ex-NM governor as well and anybody that thinks he's POTUS material.
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
I think we can do much better than that, Fraz.
Spoiler:
Perfect! Every time one of the candidates...and let's face it, it's really just one that does this regularly during the debates...doesn't answer a question directly as it's posed by the moderator, Jules draws his .45 and does the 'Pulp Fiction' bible quote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 14:09:52
skyth wrote: There is a decent candidate and a whackjob candidate. The choice is obvious.
Well I see only two bad candidates, if you want decent candidates you have to look outside the big two parties
Stein and Johnson are both gak choices if not worse than HRC and Trump (more so Stein that Johnson when compared to trump)
I don't believe either of them have been accused of crimes, unlike HRC/DT though.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
