|
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 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
Sure, that's fair. But how is that a "vote for democracy" when it's literally not voting for a candidate, and why is this considered more special than the idea that *actually voting* is a vote for democracy?
Edit: Perhaps the statement "Every voter and non-voter is voting for democracy" makes the most sense in my head compared to previous statements, and I'll leave it at that for tonight 
|
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.
If you want the strictly textbook definition, gerrymandering in many cases has been found to be in violation of the law. So technically speaking, an electoral system that violates the law is "illegitimate". That said, the margin of the issue isn't so great that it will always be an issue. It looks like there's been 5 occurrences in US history of the election going against popular vote, and it would be interested to see if voting districts drawn by outside 3rd parties would have changed any of those.
In a far more general sense, I don't think fair criticism of the electoral process should be dismissed just because it's the system that's been in place for hundreds of years. That's just appeal to tradition. Especially when those complaints have just as much tradition.
On March 03 2018 13:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2018 13:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Sure, that's fair. But how is that a "vote for democracy" when it's literally not voting for a candidate, and why is this considered more special than the idea that *actually voting* is a vote for democracy? Edit: Perhaps the statement "Every voter and non-voter is voting for democracy" makes the most sense in my head compared to previous statements, and I'll leave it at that for tonight
The other side of this is that a non-vote can't be automatically included into a vote against the present options. A lot of people just don't vote for completely non-political reasons.
Most countries without mandatory voting have the same kind of voting turn-out as the US, but countries with mandatory votes don't have an overwhelming number of non-votes. And some of those countries actually have a ballot option for "none of the above".
|
The appeal to tradition argument doesn’t really hold up, though. The electoral college is to prevent the most populated states from owning the executive branch. It is to prevent a concentration of power. The thirteen colonies where not going to be ruled by NYC and Boston picking the president every 4 years.
|
On March 03 2018 14:06 Plansix wrote:
The appeal to tradition argument doesn’t really hold up, though. The electoral college is to prevent the most populated states from owning the executive branch. It is to prevent a concentration of power. The thirteen colonies where not going to be ruled by NYC and Boston picking the president every 4 years.
Which is fair reason for keeping the electoral college, but not a good reason to avoid discussion of the framework.
|
On March 03 2018 14:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 14:06 Plansix wrote:
The appeal to tradition argument doesn’t really hold up, though. The electoral college is to prevent the most populated states from owning the executive branch. It is to prevent a concentration of power. The thirteen colonies where not going to be ruled by NYC and Boston picking the president every 4 years. Which is fair reason for keeping the electoral college, but not a good reason to avoid discussion of the framework.
The electoral votes and how they are cast is set by state. They could change it to not be winner take all. But if you think the college is flawed, just wait to see if we get candidate with less than 270.
|
United States42989 Posts
On March 03 2018 12:40 IgnE wrote:
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?
America has no hands to sign up for anything. What you're trying to say is that the American people collectively signed up for this, at which point it becomes necessary to point out that the American people, when asked, said Hillary should be president in greater numbers.
|
That isn’t the game KwarK. Popular vote is how you run up the score, not how you seize the GG.
|
United States42989 Posts
On March 03 2018 14:23 Plansix wrote:
That isn’t the game KwarK. Popular vote is how you run up the score, not how you seize the GG.
I know. That's not relevant to anything I said. Igne was talking about the will of America, and therefore presumably the collective will of the American people. I disputed that on the grounds that a plurality of the American people did not vote for Trump. That there isn't really a case to be made that Trump is who the people picked. You're not giving me, or anybody else, new information here. We all know that the electoral college pick the President. Try to keep up with what the actual point being discussed is.
|
Lol people talking about the EC and Gerrymandering as if one has anything to do with the other. Please, tell me, how do you Gerrymander an entire state? (If you don't know, the EC is determined by state population +2 and is generally a winner take all affair based on popular vote)
Ya'll crack me up acting like you know what the fuck you are talking about.
|
On March 03 2018 14:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 14:23 Plansix wrote:
That isn’t the game KwarK. Popular vote is how you run up the score, not how you seize the GG. I know. That's not relevant to anything I said. Igne was talking about the will of America, and therefore presumably the collective will of the American people. I disputed that on the grounds that a plurality of the American people did not vote for Trump. That there isn't really a case to be made that Trump is who the people picked. You're not giving me, or anybody else, new information here. We all know that the electoral college pick the President. Try to keep up with what the actual point being discussed is.
I mean the case is that he is President, right? You're not giving new information either, but worse, you aren't even giving relevant information.
The People is bound up with the Nation State and its governmental apparatus, legitimated by its particular electoral system.
|
I don't know if this question belongs in this thread or in the "stupid questions" thread, but:
How did we make it to over 10,000 pages without coming to the consensus to no longer have semantics arguments about popular vs. electoral votes?
We all know by now that the electoral college 270-vote threshold is how our president is elected, and we also know that that system does not necessarily give us the candidate who was most popular in the general election, such as the Trump vs. Clinton distinction.
It starts becoming semantically disingenuous when we say things like "The American people spoke and signed up for Trump over Clinton" and then waiting to jump on anyone who wants to clarify the ambiguity there, as such a statement could be interpreted in terms of the electoral college or in terms of the popular vote.
|
On March 03 2018 21:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't know if this question belongs in this thread or in the "stupid questions" thread, but:
How did we make it to over 10,000 pages without coming to the consensus to no longer have semantics arguments about popular vs. electoral votes?
We all know by now that the electoral college 270-vote threshold is how our president is elected, and we also know that that system does not necessarily give us the candidate who was most popular in the general election, such as the Trump vs. Clinton distinction.
It starts becoming semantically disingenuous when we say things like "The American people spoke and signed up for Trump over Clinton" and then waiting to jump on anyone who wants to clarify the ambiguity there, as such a statement could be interpreted in terms of the electoral college or in terms of the popular vote.
because having stupid arguments is what the internet is about.
also sinc ewhen do we come to consensus or agreements on things in the thread? it's not like we do that in general. nor is it done much in politics in general (or rather, when it's done you don't hear about it because it's not news).
|
On March 03 2018 15:04 Wegandi wrote:
Lol people talking about the EC and Gerrymandering as if one has anything to do with the other. Please, tell me, how do you Gerrymander an entire state? (If you don't know, the EC is determined by state population +2 and is generally a winner take all affair based on popular vote)
Ya'll crack me up acting like you know what the fuck you are talking about.
I'd imagine that an interesting analogy could be set up between the gerrymandered district lines drawn within a state for state elections, and the state boundaries of our national map for national elections, although of course we don't change the shape of our entire states as frequently as we redraw district lines.
They're both relevant to the idea of how specific boundaries can sway a republic election away from the democratic popular vote, revealing an inconsistency between who the collective voted for and who ended up winning the election.
|
On March 03 2018 21:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 21:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't know if this question belongs in this thread or in the "stupid questions" thread, but:
How did we make it to over 10,000 pages without coming to the consensus to no longer have semantics arguments about popular vs. electoral votes?
We all know by now that the electoral college 270-vote threshold is how our president is elected, and we also know that that system does not necessarily give us the candidate who was most popular in the general election, such as the Trump vs. Clinton distinction.
It starts becoming semantically disingenuous when we say things like "The American people spoke and signed up for Trump over Clinton" and then waiting to jump on anyone who wants to clarify the ambiguity there, as such a statement could be interpreted in terms of the electoral college or in terms of the popular vote. because having stupid arguments is what the internet is about. also sinc ewhen do we come to consensus or agreements on things in the thread? it's not like we do that in general. nor is it done much in politics in general (or rather, when it's done you don't hear about it because it's not news).
I just mean that in terms of having fruitful and progressive discussions, we need to at least get past some basic definitions and semantics arguments and move to more substantive and nuanced points.
But you're right: This is the internet.
|
On March 03 2018 21:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 21:11 zlefin wrote:On March 03 2018 21:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't know if this question belongs in this thread or in the "stupid questions" thread, but:
How did we make it to over 10,000 pages without coming to the consensus to no longer have semantics arguments about popular vs. electoral votes?
We all know by now that the electoral college 270-vote threshold is how our president is elected, and we also know that that system does not necessarily give us the candidate who was most popular in the general election, such as the Trump vs. Clinton distinction.
It starts becoming semantically disingenuous when we say things like "The American people spoke and signed up for Trump over Clinton" and then waiting to jump on anyone who wants to clarify the ambiguity there, as such a statement could be interpreted in terms of the electoral college or in terms of the popular vote. because having stupid arguments is what the internet is about. also sinc ewhen do we come to consensus or agreements on things in the thread? it's not like we do that in general. nor is it done much in politics in general (or rather, when it's done you don't hear about it because it's not news). I just mean that in terms of having fruitful and progressive discussions, we need to at least get past some basic definitions and semantics arguments and move to more substantive and nuanced points. But you're right: This is the internet.
having fruitful and pgoressive discussions? sinc ewhen do we do that? I mean bits of it happen on occasion, but it's maybe 5% of the total.
|
On March 03 2018 04:18 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. All the "good" countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland) are majority Christian. The real obstacle to addressing climate change is the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex (that Einsenhower warned us about), and the bought politicians who comprise the majority of the house and senate.
Erm... they might identify as Christian on the religious table, that doesn't make them 'Christian' in a sense that's meaningful for this particular topic. England is technically a Christian country but our public life is almost entirely secular. You'll find the same is true for the countries you've mentioned.
The secularisation of public life is the important part, not the religious swing of the public themselves.
|
On March 03 2018 14:06 Plansix wrote:
The appeal to tradition argument doesn’t really hold up, though. The electoral college is to prevent the most populated states from owning the executive branch. It is to prevent a concentration of power. The thirteen colonies where not going to be ruled by NYC and Boston picking the president every 4 years.
Just because that was the reason doesn't mean it's a good one. The problem with the electoral college is that it effectively invalidates millions of votes. Republican votes in NY or California don't have any effect whatsoever, Same goes for Democratic votes in Mississippi or Louisiana. Any vote above the winning threshold (e.g. 50+1 in California for a Dem) is also useless, and therefore effectively wasted. The electoral College also makes votes in urban areas worth mathematically less value than votes in rural areas. The same problems can be applied to senators/representatives at both the state and federal level.
If you want to defend the Electoral College, you have to explain why both of those premises (1. invalidating minority votes in geographical areas and 2. devaluing urban votes in a mathematical sense) are ethically acceptable in a Democracy, because by endorsing the EC you are effectively telling people in NYC "your vote isn't worth as much in our electoral system as a vote from someone in rural Alabama, or anywhere in a swing state. Deal with it".
And before people say, "all you would do by getting rid of the EC is make it so the votes in NYC matter and the rest don't", this is simply wrong by definition. If we switched to the popular vote, then every single vote would count, even Joe Shmoe's vote in rural Montana, because it would still contribute to the total. Sure, you would have more campaigning in urban areas because there are more votes, but you would also have more campaigning in urban areas in almost every state where you never currently see it, by both parties, because every vote that they gain actually contributes to their total, unlike now (e.g. Democratic votes in urban Texas still don't count for shit, so you never see any campaigning there).
Lol people talking about the EC and Gerrymandering as if one has anything to do with the other. Please, tell me, how do you Gerrymander an entire state? (If you don't know, the EC is determined by state population +2 and is generally a winner take all affair based on popular vote)
Ya'll crack me up acting like you know what the fuck you are talking about.
Because they tend to have a very similar effect and bring up the same ethical dilemmas.
|
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.
Why is questioning the ability of the US electoral system (presidential or otherwise) to deliver legitimate outcomes that outrageous?
|
On March 03 2018 21:43 kollin 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. Why is questioning the ability of the US electoral system (presidential or otherwise) to deliver legitimate outcomes that outrageous? Because the Founding Fathers are gods and to question their actions heresy of the greatest sort.
They decided on this system and therefor it is perfect now and forever more.
|
On March 03 2018 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 21:43 kollin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why is questioning the ability of the US electoral system (presidential or otherwise) to deliver legitimate outcomes that outrageous? Because the Founding Fathers are gods and to question their actions heresy of the greatest sort. They decided on this system and therefor it is perfect now and forever more.
How do people believe in a document like the Bible with so many logical inconsistencies? It's human nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
