|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2018 10:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 10:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2018 09:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2018 07:58 IgnE wrote:
This is the Trump that America signed up for. The experiment must be conducted. Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. Is the American electoral process legitimate or not? Not when the system is gerrymandered to the point where rural areas with less population represent larger areas than cities. The system was made to be this way from the start. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. You should probably look up where the name "Gerrymander" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. You should probably look up where the name "Electoral College" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. Are you a time traveller? Because "now" is an odd time-frame to be using for a criticism that has existed for almost as long as your electoral college. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is in this post. the least I can understand is that you're arguing for me to me. I saw the wood blocks in washington if thats part of your argument.
Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly.
Gerrymandering is a term from 1812. So the complaint has existed almost as long as your electoral system, not just "now".
|
On March 03 2018 10:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 10:56 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2018 09:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2018 07:58 IgnE wrote:
This is the Trump that America signed up for. The experiment must be conducted. Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. Is the American electoral process legitimate or not? Not when the system is gerrymandered to the point where rural areas with less population represent larger areas than cities. The system was made to be this way from the start. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. You should probably look up where the name "Gerrymander" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. You should probably look up where the name "Electoral College" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. Are you a time traveller? Because "now" is an odd time-frame to be using for a criticism that has existed for almost as long as your electoral college. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is in this post. the least I can understand is that you're arguing for me to me. I saw the wood blocks in washington if thats part of your argument. Gerrymandering is a term from 1812. So the complaint has existed almost as long as your electoral system, not just "now".
So the Us government has been Illegitimate from 1812 if not really the start is what you're saying?
Edit: Or really the point is that now that you don't like the results its Illegitimate but before it reached some arbitrary level to you it reached illegitimacy.
|
There is a reasonable argument that new data bases have made gerrymandering more effective and greater disengagement of voters. Illegitimate is the wrong term. But the current system easily creates governments that do not accurately represent the majority of the population in some states.
|
On March 03 2018 11:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 10:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:56 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2018 09:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. Is the American electoral process legitimate or not? Not when the system is gerrymandered to the point where rural areas with less population represent larger areas than cities. The system was made to be this way from the start. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. You should probably look up where the name "Gerrymander" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. You should probably look up where the name "Electoral College" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. Are you a time traveller? Because "now" is an odd time-frame to be using for a criticism that has existed for almost as long as your electoral college. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is in this post. the least I can understand is that you're arguing for me to me. I saw the wood blocks in washington if thats part of your argument. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. Gerrymandering is a term from 1812. So the complaint has existed almost as long as your electoral system, not just "now". So the Us government has been Illegitimate from 1812 if not really the start is what you're saying? Edit: Or really the point is that now that you don't like the results its Illegitimate but before it reached some arbitrary level to you it reached illegitimacy.
I think his point is merely that he wasn't around in 1812 so he couldn't have popssibly said it from the beginning
|
On March 03 2018 11:21 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 11:11 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:56 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2018 10:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 03 2018 10:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2018 09:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Is the American electoral process legitimate or not? Not when the system is gerrymandered to the point where rural areas with less population represent larger areas than cities. The system was made to be this way from the start. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. You should probably look up where the name "Gerrymander" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. You should probably look up where the name "Electoral College" comes from. Or when it comes from, really. Are you a time traveller? Because "now" is an odd time-frame to be using for a criticism that has existed for almost as long as your electoral college. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is in this post. the least I can understand is that you're arguing for me to me. I saw the wood blocks in washington if thats part of your argument. Saying its Illegitimate now after hundreds of years is pretty silly. Gerrymandering is a term from 1812. So the complaint has existed almost as long as your electoral system, not just "now". So the Us government has been Illegitimate from 1812 if not really the start is what you're saying? Edit: Or really the point is that now that you don't like the results its Illegitimate but before it reached some arbitrary level to you it reached illegitimacy. I think his point is merely that he wasn't around in 1812 so he couldn't have popssibly said it from the beginning
Yeah but thats also a shitty point as well. Is the standard for legitimate representative democracies parliamentarian systems that are automatically redrawn by statistical analysis of censure data?
I'm all for trying to remove the human bias from the way districts are made and remade but its the absolute ruin of a country when people declare their government illegitimate and people casually throwing around terms like that its incredibly shitty.
|
|
|
United States43849 Posts
On March 03 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 05:02 farvacola wrote:I'm reading through Sixth Circuit decisions given that it's a slow work day and thought I'd share this gem. Johnson filed a pretrial motion to strike his nickname "Unkle Murda" from the indictment and to exclude reference to it at trial, arguing that it would unduly prejudice the jury in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. This is why y'all shouldn't listen to rap music lol. His year end wrap ups are the shit (that doesn't mean they are fecal matter) Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2018 07:58 IgnE wrote:
This is the Trump that America signed up for. The experiment must be conducted. Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. ~70% of the voting age population didn't vote for her.
Do you know what the word plurality means GH?
|
United States43849 Posts
On March 03 2018 09:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2018 07:58 IgnE wrote:
This is the Trump that America signed up for. The experiment must be conducted. Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. Is the American electoral process legitimate or not?
Legitimate and democratic are two different things, you claimed one and are now seeking to muddy the waters by defending the other. Trump won the contest according to the rules of the contest but that does not automatically mean that he was the candidate favoured by the American electorate. You state the facts of the former and hope that the reader will infer the latter.
|
I always claimed legitimacy. What are you talking about? I said America signed up for (this, real) Trump. The one with the gun control and the trade wars, not just the nepotism. And America, the People, the Government, did sign up for him. There is no other America to appeal to here, unless you count yourself a revolutionary.
You are the one muddying the waters with your "democratic." America is a federal republic and has always been so. Are you referring to the Spinozan "absolute democracy" or just making some stupid point about the popular vote?
|
On March 03 2018 12:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2018 05:02 farvacola wrote:I'm reading through Sixth Circuit decisions given that it's a slow work day and thought I'd share this gem. Johnson filed a pretrial motion to strike his nickname "Unkle Murda" from the indictment and to exclude reference to it at trial, arguing that it would unduly prejudice the jury in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. This is why y'all shouldn't listen to rap music lol. His year end wrap ups are the shit (that doesn't mean they are fecal matter) On March 03 2018 09:22 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2018 07:58 IgnE wrote:
This is the Trump that America signed up for. The experiment must be conducted. Pretty sure the plurality of Americans voted for Hillary. ~70% of the voting age population didn't vote for her. Do you know what the word plurality means GH?
Yeah, the plurality voted for no one.
EDIT: Igne's probably right on the wording.
|
GH says the plurality voted to abstain.
|
On March 03 2018 12:44 IgnE wrote:
GH says the plurality voted to abstain.
That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes.
Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/
Double Edit: "Voting to abstain" [from voting] in an election is a silly thing to say too, especially since the plurality of votes were not "Other: [left blank]". If you're voting for a candidate- as pretty much everyone who voted did- you're not abstaining. And if you didn't vote, you're not part of the population that determines majority/ plurality anymore.
|
|
|
On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/
The American people disagree. A vote for no one is a vote for democracy.
See what I did there? I appealed to a non-existent American people.
|
On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/
I mean sure, if you exclude a larger portion of the population than voted for her from the count she got the plurality, but that kinda takes the wind out of the implications behind it.
|
On March 03 2018 13:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2018 12:44 IgnE wrote:
GH says the plurality voted to abstain. That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ The American people disagree. A vote for no one is a vote for democracy.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about how certain words are defined. Also, saying "A vote for no one is a vote for democracy" is pretty hollow, considering how negligible the number of votes cast for "no one" was in that election. Pretty much everyone who casted a vote, voted for a candidate. Very few people submitted a vote that was somehow recorded as "no one".
|
I'm talking about what GH said. A non-vote for not anyone is a vote for democracy. How about that?
|
On March 03 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2018 12:44 IgnE wrote:
GH says the plurality voted to abstain. That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ I mean sure, if you exclude a larger portion of the population than voted for her from the count she got the plurality, but that kinda takes the wind out of the implications behind it.
I understand the point you're trying to make- and maybe it's just semantics- but declaring a majority or plurality doesn't actually regard non-voters by definition. I agree with you that a significant percentage of voting age Americans did not vote. Also, and regardless, Hillary won the popular vote with a plurality.
|
On March 03 2018 13:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:24 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2018 12:44 IgnE wrote:
GH says the plurality voted to abstain. That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ The American people disagree. A vote for no one is a vote for democracy. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about how certain words are defined. Also, saying "A vote for no one is a vote for democracy" is pretty hollow, considering how negligible the number of votes cast for "no one" was in that election. Pretty much everyone who casted a vote, voted for a candidate. Very few people submitted a vote that was somehow recorded as "no one".
At least 70,000 voters in Detroit had their votes counted down ballot but not for President. We don't really know if they voted for no one or what because they just simply weren't tabulated and we only discovered them as a result of Jill Stein's recount effort (not an endorsement of the effort, merely noting we'd have no idea otherwise).
Last I heard that could have been important in a state like Michigan.
On March 03 2018 13:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2018 13:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2018 12:44 IgnE wrote:
GH says the plurality voted to abstain. That's pretty much nonsensical by the conventional definition of plurality. Plurality is the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority. The set of all possible pluralities only consists of candidates, not the "didn't vote/ no candidate" option. The abstaining alternative is simply not an option for plurality, by definition of what a plurality is. It's nonsensical to say that the plurality abstained, because by definition the plurality characteristic is only possibly attributed to candidates who had votes. Edit: And the total count is out of all the votes cast when distinguishing plurality or majority. The potential votes not cast don't change those characteristics. Hillary Clinton won the plurality, and almost the majority, of votes: https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/ I mean sure, if you exclude a larger portion of the population than voted for her from the count she got the plurality, but that kinda takes the wind out of the implications behind it. I understand the point you're trying to make- and maybe it's just semantics- but declaring a majority or plurality doesn't actually regard non-voters by definition. I agree with you that a significant percentage of voting age Americans did not vote. Also, and regardless, Hillary won the popular vote with a plurality.
I get what you're saying, it's just not as significant as it's being made to sound, particularly when it's precluded by simply including the people who chose none of the above.
|
On March 03 2018 13:30 IgnE wrote:
I'm talking about what GH said. A non-vote for not anyone is a vote for democracy. How about that?
I don't think the double negative there adds clarity, but I also don't think this is a significant enough nuance for me to press further.
The last thing I also wish to point out is that people not voting doesn't automatically mean that they're "voting for democracy". I feel like that phrase isn't very meaningful in this scenario because it sounds like you're saying that all non-voters are consciously and purposely not voting to specifically show their disdain of all the candidate options, while certainly the vast majority of non-voters simply don't care or they think their vote doesn't matter, like always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
