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.
LordofHats wrote: In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.
It's true that a straight popular vote can lead to "tyranny of the majority" and a two party rule, but that's if it's done using first-past-the-post voting (and indeed, even the electoral system didn't prevent that because it's based on the same type of voting). My biggest complaint is that, within the rules of our electoral system, the electors have the authority to negate the will of the people which is pretty fething anti-republic.
Personally, I'm in favor of ranked choice voting. If people are serious about making multiple party elections a reality, it's the best way to do it.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "The Democrats are just complaining because they didn't benefit this time!" would hold a lot more merit if it wasn't for the fact that all four Presidents (not counting JCQ because that was... special) that have won despite getting less votes have been Republican.
Untrue. It very much holds merit because everyone knows the rules going into any given election cycle. The rules don't change and both the Republicans and Democrats have to play by them. The Democrats have worked tirelessly to gain ground in the most populous States as shown by flipping California from a previously Republican State to a reliable Democrat one in the past three decades. The Republicans have shifted their targets to the smaller but more numerous States which gives them greater control of State Governorships and State legislatures. That's the major reason we're seeing mismatches between the Electoral College and the "popular vote".
What needs to happen is people learn that there is not one single popular vote count. There are fifty-one separate popular votes and that's what decides who gets to be President.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 21:11:21
Take it from me, however bad things get in America, your system works. And if there's problems, the constitution tells you how to fix them, and in the unlikely event it doesn't you have a clear procedure in place to add a new 'rule' to the 'rulebook.'
Contrast that to Britain and the 3 way battle between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, that's going on right now.
The British public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in. And the judges are deciding who has the power to take us out....
And we'll probably need another election to sort it out.
In the last 2 years, I've had 2 mega important referendums, 1 important general election, and another important general election on its way.
I'm somebody who hands out leaflets, knocks on doors, writes letters, and helps organise things....
Quite frankly, I'm fed up with democracy - it's hard work!
Give me the simplicity of the American system
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
whembly wrote: Obama does leave office with high popularity... but for the rest of the Democratic Party... starting at 2008 this was a slow-motion trainwreck.
This is where we see the efforts of the Republican party bear fruit. They've managed to isolate Democrats into the larger more urbanized states which is why it's becoming so hard for them to get the magic 270 number in the Electoral College. If only the Republicans could bring in greater numbers on non-white voters into the "big tent" they'd be unstoppable.
Take it from me, however bad things get in America, your system works. And if there's problems, the constitution tells you how to fix them, and in the unlikely event it doesn't you have a clear procedure in place to add a new 'rule' to the 'rulebook.'
Contrast that to Britain and the 3 way battle between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, that's going on right now.
The British public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in. And the judges are deciding who has the power to take us out....
And we'll probably need another election to sort it out.
In the last 2 years, I've had 2 mega important referendums, 1 important general election, and another important general election on its way.
I'm somebody who hands out leaflets, knocks on doors, writes letters, and helps organise things....
Quite frankly, I'm fed up with democracy - it's hard work!
Give me the simplicity of the American system
Join with US and Together WE can RULE THE GALAXY!!!!
-"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!
I think that really depends on how you define simplicity XD Pragmatically the US election system is fairly simple, but it plays out complexly. Plus as a matter of state, there's a lot of hoops that get jumped through mostly just to fulfill the technicalities of passing power from one administration to the next.
Breotan wrote: What needs to happen is people learn that there is not one single popular vote count. There are fifty-one separate popular votes and that's what decides who gets to be President.
I think most people understand the basics of the Electoral College system, but it should also be noted that it isn't really fifty-one separate popular votes because that's not what they are.
We're voting for (generally) unknown electors, chosen by the major political parties, to cast their votes for President in December with nothing in the Constitution that makes them beholden to our will. It has never happened and it might not ever happen, but the simple fact that these people could, for "our own good," reverse the will of the people should be cause enough to consider changing the system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 21:21:50
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
I would like to see Maine and Nebraska's system used all over:
Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.
LordofHats wrote: I think that really depends on how you define simplicity XD Pragmatically the US election system is fairly simple, but it plays out complexly. Plus as a matter of state, there's a lot of hoops that get jumped through mostly just to fulfill the technicalities of passing power from one administration to the next.
True, but your system was designed and put in place from Day 1.
You don't have a 1000 years of tacked on laws, arcane procedures, two unique nations joining in 1707 to form Britain (thus adding another layer of complexity) a monarch, an unelected second chamber that makes the Chinese Communist party look small, and an unwritten constitution that somehow amounts to hundreds of pages, despite being unwritten
And you think you have problems!
The founding fathers were smart. They said, hey, we like this English bill of rights. We'll borrow that and ditch the rest, and thus was the American constitution born.
Take it from me, however bad things get in America, your system works. And if there's problems, the constitution tells you how to fix them, and in the unlikely event it doesn't you have a clear procedure in place to add a new 'rule' to the 'rulebook.'
Contrast that to Britain and the 3 way battle between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, that's going on right now.
The British public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in. And the judges are deciding who has the power to take us out....
And we'll probably need another election to sort it out.
In the last 2 years, I've had 2 mega important referendums, 1 important general election, and another important general election on its way.
I'm somebody who hands out leaflets, knocks on doors, writes letters, and helps organise things....
Quite frankly, I'm fed up with democracy - it's hard work!
Give me the simplicity of the American system
Join with US and Together WE can RULE THE GALAXY!!!!
Newsflash Frazz, we were joined, but you guys got your heads turned by dangerous ideas like Freedom, and root beer, and baseball
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 21:34:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
LordofHats wrote: In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.
It's true that a straight popular vote can lead to "tyranny of the majority" and a two party rule, but that's if it's done using first-past-the-post voting (and indeed, even the electoral system didn't prevent that because it's based on the same type of voting). My biggest complaint is that, within the rules of our electoral system, the electors have the authority to negate the will of the people which is pretty fething anti-republic.
Personally, I'm in favor of ranked choice voting. If people are serious about making multiple party elections a reality, it's the best way to do it.
You mean faithless electors? Aren't those really rare, and aren't there measures to stop them from doing that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 21:35:30
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
LordofHats wrote: In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.
It's true that a straight popular vote can lead to "tyranny of the majority" and a two party rule, but that's if it's done using first-past-the-post voting (and indeed, even the electoral system didn't prevent that because it's based on the same type of voting). My biggest complaint is that, within the rules of our electoral system, the electors have the authority to negate the will of the people which is pretty fething anti-republic.
Personally, I'm in favor of ranked choice voting. If people are serious about making multiple party elections a reality, it's the best way to do it.
You mean faithless electors?
Yes they're rare... something like 70 electors went "faithless" in the last... forever I think? (not sure of number, but it's ridiculously low)
Aren't those really rare, and aren't there measures to stop them from doing that?
About half the state has laws that'll punish faithless electors, but even then it's Constitutionally dubious.
We'll know for sure how likely faithless electors would be this time around... 'cuz... yaknow... Cheeto Jesus won.
Newsflash Frazz, we were joined, but you guys got your heads turned by dangerous ideas like Freedom, and root beer, and baseball
Incorrect. At the time we were enjoying queso, enchiladas, and some fine tequila. I don't know what you Gringos were doing. Viva Spain!
-"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!
kronk wrote: I would like to see Maine and Nebraska's system used all over:
Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.
No. Districs are too vulnerable to gerrymanding that perverts the will of the people.
kronk wrote: I would like to see Maine and Nebraska's system used all over:
Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.
Which, if used for this or any historical election would not have changed the result if I am not mistaken, including in 2000 when the Republicans maintained only a 3 seat majority in the House.
Regarding perspectives on the EC, I thought both of the videos below were decently thought out arguments for and against the EC.
Ultimately I prefer the current EC to a straight 50.1% popular vote just because of the risk of the type of pandering or electioneering that effectively results in precincts voting for one candidate at a rate that is not consistent with the voting patterns of the vast majority of the country.
Also, I think it is misleading when we look as states as red or blue based on the EC vote since the margin of victory could vary significantly. Even looking at an election map drawn by congressional districts is misleading in that same respect just as the county map shared previously.
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
LordofHats wrote: In the rush to bemoan how the college can produce a winner who didn't win the popular vote, and accurate criticism of how in the system some votes count more than others, I think people forget that the college was put in place precisely because a straight popular vote easily becomes tyranny of the majority.
It's true that a straight popular vote can lead to "tyranny of the majority" and a two party rule, but that's if it's done using first-past-the-post voting (and indeed, even the electoral system didn't prevent that because it's based on the same type of voting). My biggest complaint is that, within the rules of our electoral system, the electors have the authority to negate the will of the people which is pretty fething anti-republic.
Personally, I'm in favor of ranked choice voting. If people are serious about making multiple party elections a reality, it's the best way to do it.
You mean faithless electors? Aren't those really rare, and aren't there measures to stop them from doing that?
Some states make it illegal;
Most states require electors to pledge their votes before election day. These laws were upheld in Ray v Blair (1952), though that case curiously specified that only requiring a pledge was legally and did not require that electors actually uphold said pledge. To my knowledge a faithless elector has never been charged for being faithless. Not sure a faithless elector has ever happened in a state with laws against it really.
Regardless it is extremely unusual. The last real time it happened was Barbara Lett-Simmons, elector from D.C. who refused to cast a vote in protest for D.C. not having congressional representation (this was in the 2000 election).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:15:37
Never in a million years would I have voted for Trump but I can understand why people voted for him, and they voted for him for the same reasons for BREXIT: they really are fed up with 'political elites' and being told what to do.
Political elites is not a bad cliche here, these people exist, and they have nothing but disdain and contempt for ordinary people.
Americans might not be aware of this, but working class white people in Britain are treated like gak by so called 'progressives.'
They don't like the working class, they don't trust them.
As somebody from that social strata myself, this is what I've had to listen to for the last 20 years:
A sugar tax is needed becuase people like you can't be trusted to eat good food, and you're all fat and obese.
You automatically beleive everything you read in right-wing newspapers.
You can't be trusted to raise children - you treat them bad and abuse them.
When it's the soccer world cup, don't you dare start waving an English flag in England, becuase that's evil nationalism.
And you hate immigrants, and your favourite hobby is beating up immigrants on a Saturday.
This is no exageration. Liberals have said and done these things. That is the default setting for many a British newspaper.
And I saw the same thing happen in the USA.
Oh, you're a redneck, you own guns, that makes you bad, and you;re going to shoot up a school.
You're voting for Trump becuase your sexist and hate women, and you're probably a grand master in the KKK etc etc
When people outside of NY and LA and New England, have to listen to years of that, they will push back.
I don't blame them for voting Trump. If I had to listen to that everyday, I would have voted for Trump...
The evidence is the reaction from so called progressives since Tuesday night. They talk about the 'dark ages,' nuclear winter, progress set back 50 years and so on.
They voted Trump becuase they were racist and sexit, not because Clinton was backed by arms companies and was planning on more warhawk foreing policy, or took cash from regimes with bad human rights records or any other valid reason....
There is no nuance. Nobody ever said, we need 50,000 immigrants to fill a skills gap. It was all, you're accepting immigrants, and if you object, you're a racist....
But so called liberals and progressive, in many respects, have only themselves to blame...
I don't like Trump, would never have voted for him, but I can understand why people did...
It is funny how the "conservative liberals" aka Neo-liberals, took and grabbed the term liberal and progressive so folks could not tell any difference, and they are calling actual progressives who supported Bernie and other female candidates they have not supported "sexist" beating that term to death.
Actual Progressives want good things for everyone, not just themselves, but the 10%-er elites in the Dem party have been masking for years their pro-corporate, right of center betrayal of working class Americans for decades. I left the Dems since they were no longer the party of the People, just the elites and corporate types who have received benefits from their "economic recovery" that most Americans making 50k or less a year cannot seem to get to lift them up as well.
71% of our people are at 50K, or worse, lower. I used to bust my butt for no more than 18k a year, now on disability, and unable to be employed, 13k is worse, but I have been as low as 5k for a year on unemployment and temp jobs. I was amongst those who followed the rules, did as was told for the "American dream" jsut to watch it slip further away each year. Like Carlin said, I realized like he that to experience the American Dream under the Neo-libs, you have to be asleep.
And for many who still pursue the ideal that they too can get rich, well, if you ain't in the club, you ain't getting in. Carlin had a lot of insights
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:14:59
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Lord of Deeds wrote: Ultimately I prefer the current EC to a straight 50.1% popular vote just because of the risk of the type of pandering or electioneering that effectively results in precincts voting for one candidate at a rate that is not consistent with the voting patterns of the vast majority of the country.
But the winner did pander,and electioneering, and won without a majority of the citizen's votes because of the EC. The reality doesn't reflect the desire, or even make sense; it is an argument that falsifies itself. Perhaps it isn't well explained.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:16:57
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Oh as for the rioting mobs post election? where were they for other issues to be outraged over with? Their horse lost the race, get over it, you don't see those of us who voted 3rd party smashing places up because our candidate lost do you? we knew it was an uphill battle anyway.
Hillary lost because she was the same-old-lame-old figure head for all that has gone wrong, Bernie really might have won, but we shall never know as the cards were played the way the DNC wanted to, that party needs to clean house and brush aside the Idjits that went all out stupid in DC
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
shasolenzabi wrote: Oh as for the rioting mobs post election? where were they for other issues to be outraged over with? Their horse lost the race, get over it, you don't see those of us who voted 3rd party smashing places up because our candidate lost do you? we knew it was an uphill battle anyway.
Hillary lost because she was the same-old-lame-old figure head for all that has gone wrong, Bernie really might have won, but we shall never know as the cards were played the way the DNC wanted to, that party needs to clean house and brush aside the Idjits that went all out stupid in DC
Well, the news today that I've seen sounds as if they didn't learn a thing in this election, and they're going to swing harder left.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:21:10
Luckily, hopefully, Toronto is too diverse for this to really gain momentum, but it still steams me that suddenly this kind of speech is creeping out of the dank basement that is belongs in.
And before anyone asks "what's wrong with what they're saying?", I have plenty of answers, too many in fact to type them all out in this post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:22:21
shasolenzabi wrote: Oh as for the rioting mobs post election? where were they for other issues to be outraged over with? Their horse lost the race, get over it, you don't see those of us who voted 3rd party smashing places up because our candidate lost do you? we knew it was an uphill battle anyway.
Hillary lost because she was the same-old-lame-old figure head for all that has gone wrong, Bernie really might have won, but we shall never know as the cards were played the way the DNC wanted to, that party needs to clean house and brush aside the Idjits that went all out stupid in DC
Well, the news today that I've seen sounds as if they didn't learn a thing in this election, and they're going to swing harder left.
what is interesting is that some are starting to see it is not a left/right issue, that things should be seen as hammered out in a calm manner, where all can live with a decent compromise, not a cave in sort of compromise, but one that serves all people. too many years polarization has set in and caused all sorts of problems and crazy ideas that may cause deaths and other problems across the board. If they decide to go left, who will they swing further left with? Obama and Hillary were not true lefty's just wore lefty clothes and spoke the rhetoric, underneath more corporatists than anything else. If anything Hillary was center-right, no lefty at all.
Had they gone with Bernie, then that would have been a left of center push.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:29:19
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Luckily, hopefully, Toronto is too diverse for this to really gain momentum, but it still steams me that suddenly this kind of speech is creeping out of the dank basement that is belongs in.
And before anyone asks "what's wrong with what they're saying?", I have plenty of answers, too many in fact to type them all out in this post.
Watch the Cons in the run up to the next election. I fully expect them to double down on the muslims=terrorists BS that Harper was desperately flirting with at the end.
Fething Trump has blown the game wide open. Say whatever stupid thing you like, doesn't matter if it is true or not or even if it contradicts what you just said ten minutes before, all that matters is how your message feels.
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.'”
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ...but it should also be noted that it isn't really fifty-one separate popular votes because that's not what they are.
In forty-nine elections the winner (majority or plurality) takes all the electors and the losers get nothing. In the remaining two, it's proportional based on vote totals. Thus fifty-one separate popular vote counts determine who gets the electors. As far as the electors not being accountable, don't forget that all electors are "party loyalists" or "hacks" if you want and will vote as their told. Doing otherwise will immediately end any personal political aspirations and possibly destroy their party like static electricity destroyed the Hindenburg were the outcome of the election to actually change.
whembly wrote: This is why we have the Electoral College:
With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.
So what you are saying is that because there are more people in cities, even if they are they majority, feth them?
And, no, it's not "civics 101". It the person who made this meme actually took a civics class, they'd know that the design of the electoral collage was to give small states equal representation. More specifically, state legislatures. This was when our states were much more like a traditional state (that is to say, a country). Now that electors are chosen by the people and not the state legislatures, it no longer really works.
And even then, the whole "You only need to win over these areas!" is true now. By getting slim margins in a handful of states, you can win the EC without the popular, to a stunning degree of difference.
Plus, I don't really care if a minority is forced to go along with a majority as long as their rights aren't attacked (which is why you need a majority in both houses, plus 2/3rds of the states). It's democracy, it's not really anything new.
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.
Obama does leave office with high popularity... but for the rest of the Democratic Party... starting at 2008 this was a slow-motion trainwreck.
That is pretty brutal. Dems have to figure out a way to get their message into rural areas where the only radio stations are Rush-affiliates, religious, or country. I know, I live there!
I think we all learned a vital lesson about the need to speak convincingly to "Change" in every election, no matter what!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
~4100
~1660
