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.
Obviously not entirely to blame... but Wisconsin is mentioned in the article. Food for thought.
Sorry, but I put no faith in any article that says requiring an ID card is "Voter repression".
Especially when you can absentee vote without it. I did.
Absentee Ballots are another thing entirely. I understand the necessity of them but I also strongly disagree with the idea behind them. Far to easy to commit voter fraud with those.
I think our voting system needs an overhaul. Take a fraction of the money the two main parties throw away on adds and use it to get more people to vote to have a better representation of our country
Bromsy wrote: There are vast swathes of America that don't vote, in no small part due to knowing that their state is going one way or another regardless. If we were running a popular election to decide who was president the number of people getting out to vote would most likely go up significantly and the numbers would be different.
Isn't that a pretty damning allegation of the current system of electorats? That a wast swathe of people don't vote for a office concerning the entire nation, simply because they happen to live in a certain state.
I don't think (I hope) that people claim that Trump should be ousted from his place as president elect this moment, because Clinton got the popular vote. He won this election under the rules that was in place at the start of the election. It would perhaps be nice if next election were run under rules that don't (theoretically) allow someone to become president while getting less than half the votes of his opponent though?
This summed up my feelings on the election rather well. Trump won fair and square using the system agreed upon beforehand, but the system needs some thinking until next time. The legitimacy of democratic decisions gets weakened by having the side with the most popular support not win.*
*Yes, I'm making that argument as someone opposed to Brexit. No, this isn't the thread for that fight.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Made the promise at the beginning on the Politic thread.
Trump won
LMAO
Made that promise I would laugh my butt off
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I have to say, the description isn't exactly selling it. It seems to speak more to the writers ignorance than it does to the ignorance of "DC elites".
For example:
She (Loesch) asks commonsense questions such as: How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church?
None of these are "common sense questions". In fact, they're fairly idiotic questions. Is she really suggesting that people in LA and NY never need help from a cop? Or that you can't disagree with Walmart's political, economic, and environmental practices, unless you shop there? And the part about BLM literally made me cringe.
Does this book have some redeeming insight, that was somehow omitted from the description?
Lemme put it into perspective, this book is the opposite this:
I'm sorry, how do you miss satire that obvious. It's practically hitting you in the face with a sledgehammer.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
The ratio of state residents to representatives in Congress is the same as the ratio of state residents to electors in the Electoral College. If the people of a state are underrepresented in the electoral college then they are also under represented in Congress.
How those representatives function is also different however. In congress they dont necessarily vote as a state bloc, rarely in fact, but often either in line with the national party or in line with their district, while the electoral college doesnt have those 3 options and instead just straight votes as one solid block. The ratios are the same but the way they are employed and the decisions they are employed in are very different.
Congressional districts get drawn up by state legislators who are elected by the people so the congressional districts are representative of the will of the people as expressed by the legislators elected to represent the people. Gerrymandering only works because the people electing state legislators don't care if they do it. Blatant instances of gerrymandering have been successfully challenged in court but I haven't seen the issue addressed by candidates or voters in state legislature campaigns.
all true, but it doesnt mean that they arent also real problems with that distribution that can cause double the headache when applied to the Electoral college. The electoral college is a whole lot more "gameable" than a popular vote. This election, amongst others, being a case in point.
That said, imagine if the Electoral College functioned as actually originally intended, composed of learned and experienced citizens of high standing with good judgement as a break on populist excess and the dangers of unchecked majority rule, voting based on those qualities instead of in lockstep with the state vote, and had opted to all vote for Clinton over Trump? I imagine the uproar would be extreme and many opinions on them would be different on both sides.
As is, the Electoral college no longer functions that way or serves that purpose, it just adds another gameable layer on top of the popular vote.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
What precisely did Mr. Trump offer these voters? Snake oil, say critics. Most economists predicted that policies built on Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration and antitrade rhetoric would hardly help unemployed, working-class people in places like Kentucky and West Virginia. But where these experts heard incoherent specifics, many voters heard a consistent deeper theme: A promise to work hard at restoring left-behind Americans’ dignity by bringing back jobs and striking back at the cultural elites who disdain them.
I have to say, the description isn't exactly selling it. It seems to speak more to the writers ignorance than it does to the ignorance of "DC elites".
For example:
She (Loesch) asks commonsense questions such as: How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church?
None of these are "common sense questions". In fact, they're fairly idiotic questions. Is she really suggesting that people in LA and NY never need help from a cop? Or that you can't disagree with Walmart's political, economic, and environmental practices, unless you shop there? And the part about BLM literally made me cringe.
Does this book have some redeeming insight, that was somehow omitted from the description?
Lemme put it into perspective, this book is the opposite this:
I'm sorry, how do you miss satire that obvious. It's practically hitting you in the face with a sledgehammer.
Huh? Are you referring to the picture itself or the article within that magazine/
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
The ratio of state residents to representatives in Congress is the same as the ratio of state residents to electors in the Electoral College. If the people of a state are underrepresented in the electoral college then they are also under represented in Congress.
How those representatives function is also different however. In congress they dont necessarily vote as a state bloc, rarely in fact, but often either in line with the national party or in line with their district, while the electoral college doesnt have those 3 options and instead just straight votes as one solid block. The ratios are the same but the way they are employed and the decisions they are employed in are very different.
Congressional districts get drawn up by state legislators who are elected by the people so the congressional districts are representative of the will of the people as expressed by the legislators elected to represent the people. Gerrymandering only works because the people electing state legislators don't care if they do it. Blatant instances of gerrymandering have been successfully challenged in court but I haven't seen the issue addressed by candidates or voters in state legislature campaigns.
all true, but it doesnt mean that they arent also real problems with that distribution that can cause double the headache when applied to the Electoral college. The electoral college is a whole lot more "gameable" than a popular vote. This election, amongst others, being a case in point.
That said, imagine if the Electoral College functioned as actually originally intended, composed of learned and experienced citizens of high standing with good judgement as a break on populist excess and the dangers of unchecked majority rule, voting based on those qualities instead of in lockstep with the state vote, and had opted to all vote for Clinton over Trump? I imagine the uproar would be extreme and many opinions on them would be different on both sides.
As is, the Electoral college no longer functions that way or serves that purpose, it just adds another gameable layer on top of the popular vote.
The states dictate the parameters for how their Electoral College electors are apportioned and how they can vote. Maine, Nebraska, California for example have different rules for how their electors are awarded and can vote. If the people of a state don't like how their electors are handled they can have their state govt change the rules.
The electoral college does work as it was originally intended. Every vote counts equally against all other votes in your state. Why did Clinton win the Electoral votes for Virginia? Because she won a large majority of the votes in the populous urban areas of the state. The rural part of the state went for Trump but there were fewer people so Clinton won. That's fair and equitable. People got to vote and all the votes got counted. Your argument seems to be against federalism, that we shouldn't vote by state and should instead just put the votes from everyone in the country in one big pile and then whoever gets 50.0001% or more of the votes wins. I can see the appeal of a direct democracy for people who think the candidates they support have enough votes to win but that system is just mob rule, its the tyranny of the majority. We're not one singe State we're a State made up of 50 different states that all have equal standing as part of the State so all 50 states get a voice in a national election. We use a federal system to hold federal elections for office in the federal government. Within the states and municipalities we have more direct democracy because those elections occur within one homogeneous state entity.
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
And state districts are even worse. Think about this, if state senates chose Congresspeople, New York would have to republicans for the last 12 years or so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 17:54:52
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
In stories like these, who are the ones most affected by ID cards? the super old, and the very poor.... The super old, such as the 100 year old dude, and the 85 year old couple listed in the article I posted, more than likely cannot drive anymore.
Thats a joke. The "superold" would be mailing it in. Thats the whole point of absentee balloting.
-"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!
What precisely did Mr. Trump offer these voters? Snake oil, say critics. Most economists predicted that policies built on Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration and antitrade rhetoric would hardly help unemployed, working-class people in places like Kentucky and West Virginia. But where these experts heard incoherent specifics, many voters heard a consistent deeper theme: A promise to work hard at restoring left-behind Americans’ dignity by bringing back jobs and striking back at the cultural elites who disdain them.
And this is how he won. It wasn't about racism/misogyny/etc... it was about a large segment of the population that has been continually ignored for more then a decade now, as both parties pandered to their special interests groups.
Trump didn't build a multi-billion dollar empire because he was stupid. Whether or not he delivers, his message was the message that many needed to hear, and it's why he won. That voting block, despite hating who they were voting for, were voting for the only candidate who talked to them for a change.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
And state districts are even worse. Think about this, if state senates chose Congresspeople, New Yorkwould have to republicans for the last 12 years or so.
So your argument is that the state legislature and governor of New York, duly elected by the residents of NY state, shouldn't be allowed to choose the 2 senators to represent the state of NY in the Senate in Congress because the party affiliation of the Senators appointed by the state govt duly elected by the people of the state, wouldn't always reflect the same party affiliation of the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote in the state of NY?
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
You live in a city I take it? Now imagine your vote is completely irrelevant. Thats what it would be like if you didn't live in a city. frankly you vote is not that relevant now.
Yes, I live in a city now, but for 2/3 of my live I lived a very, very rural area. Like seriously only 1 traffic light in the entire town and more cows than people.
So what you are saying is that the EC makes the votes of city dwellers worth less than those that live outside big cities?
Why? What is the purpose of that?
Of course it's presented without additional comment. Look the guy up on Twitter for a lark.
The reason Republicans so commonly get referred to as racist, misogynists, homophobic, or bigots is because they continually vote or profess support for politicians espousing those ideas.
You don't get to pretend that you don't support it when you are supporting those espousing the ideas.
"When all the non-racist, non misogynist, non-homophobic, non-bigoted, everyday ordinary people get so sick of you calling them racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots that they go out and vote against your candidate, do you:
A. Reevalute your personal conduct and strategy of convincing people to share your politics?
Or
B. Call them racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots and yell at them even more?
According to most of my timeline, you chose B. And that's exactly why your candidate lost."
That's the post whembly.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction. Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective. The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
"When all the non-racist, non misogynist, non-homophobic, non-bigoted, everyday ordinary people get so sick of you calling them racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots that they go out and vote against your candidate, do you:
A. Reevalute your personal conduct and strategy of convincing people to share your politics?
Or
B. Call them racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots and yell at them even more?
According to most of my timeline, you chose B. And that's exactly why your candidate lost."
That's the post whembly.
Ah... thanks!
Very similar to my earlier spiel:
If you can't distinguish the rural middle class workers to the tiny 4chan trolls... this is why you lose.
I probably would have agreed with you before election night about "it's just racial resentment." Now I think the story is more complex and the article captures that. It isn't just race. It's a broad set of complicated factors that get summed up as "way of life" or "culture." Boiling it down to race is what many better, or usually better?, papers not only got wrong but in getting it wrong mobilized them.
The BBC's correspondent identified the crucial demographic months back. It's the white working class whose way of life has been eroded to nothing and have no hope left. A generation ago you could get a manufacturing job out of high school and have a decent middle class life (by British standards.) All that dissolved from the 70s onwards.
He wrote several articles about this, and pointed out the resonance of Bruce Springsteen's oeuvre. He also said that if you've got nothing, a 1 in a billion chance might seem worth trying. Trump is a snake oil salesman, and people bought snake oil because a bit of hope is something.
Trump also picked up a lot of racists and other bigots along the way, but naturally 35 million people is a broad church.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:03:00
It's becoming abundantly clear that democracy needs an Instant Runoff or Single Transferrable Vote or similar system. When 200,000 more votes out of a nation of 300+ million determines 100% of the power, the system is obviously broken.
We have similar results up here, when winning 30% of the popular vote gave the ruling party 100% of the power.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Vaktathi wrote: In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction.
Partly I think that's the fault of Congress who has relinguished must of their power to the Executive branch.
Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective.
That's a problem, because that isn't how federalism works.
The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
I disagree. We have 50 states for a reason.
Why do you think I've been banging how the 10th Amendment has been seriously eroded? Or that we should repeal Amendment 17?
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
EDIT - These images are actually from New Orleans. The vandalism that occurred last night in Richmond was limited to smashing the Republic HQ and tagging "Your Vote Was A Hate Crime" on two monuments.
Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:47:00
