|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a democracy, people vote. elites can't win by neglecting broad based interests.
the most powerful asset in politics is still the ability to herd people.
the persecution complex of those who think they are 'The People' might want to honestly think about how their ideas would be received by all the people. simplistic understanding of complex problems is the thing that underlies a lot of anger.
this is not to say a whole lot of power is concentrated in lobbying and complex legislation and regulatory process influence. but the problem with simplistic understanding of complex problems is that you don't have the ability to correctly identify the culprits. and of course, if the problem is seen as simple, then it can easily fit into a conspiratorial view of the world where a select group of people is responsible for all the problems.
|
On November 02 2016 07:12 oBlade wrote:
You shouldn't expect any candidate for one office to be able to fix everything to begin with.
It was quite obviously exaggerated to stress the point. I mean, comon man, really?
|
Are you aware of the study by Gilens and Page examining the influence of voters/massed-based movements on policy?
Edit: This is for oneofthem
|
On November 02 2016 04:41 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:39 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 04:28 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity. People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned. the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there) The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical. But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion. On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted:
you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise. See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad. I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Drumpf, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Drumpf is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it. What bullshit fascistic doomsday theories. Just repeat everything he says, add all the context you want. Or are you saying hes a liar? Sure that Russian agent stuff is far fetched but you dont need to go that far to see the obvious fascism.
Did you even read Kwark's hypothetical justification post? Trump's an authoritarian on top many things, but no way in hell all the fascism and horror he predicted would come to pass with a Congress that hates his guts, a liberal activist court & bureacracy, and filibustering of bad appointments. It's about the cleanest example anyone can ask for of the flip side of tolerating anything Hillary does: predicting Trump's a future scary monster that makes it all okay.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 07:29 Hagen0 wrote:
Are you aware of the study by Gilens and Page examining the influence of voters/massed-based movements on policy?
Edit: This is for oneofthem
i've not read it that closely. gh linked it a while back.
it seems to be far more complicated and nuanced than the representations made of it, even at a rather coarse level of analysis.
basically from what i see,
1. the 'affluent' category is not plutocracy unless you think the 90th percentile of americans are billionaires. someone who has an income of 160k isn't a plutocrat.
2. they do not tell us what kind of policy or issue was at stake. if economic issues were hugely won by the rich, then it'd really bolster their conclusions.
3. significantly, lobbying and organizational support isn't really significant. it's just 'upper middle class wins' which is not that different from what we think america is really about. you probably can interview a mutual fund manager and get similar policy views.
4. the universe of policy issue isn't addressed, because they didn't look at the content of the issues. maybe the democratic check and balance is invoked when a policy departs the norm too much, and politicians, knowing this, do not generallly draft radical laws.
i mean everyone knows the u.s. is ruled by the owner of assets, but this does not mean there is no space for productive politics on the margins, or that capitalism necessarily contradicts broad public interest.
|
On November 02 2016 07:12 oBlade wrote:
You shouldn't expect any candidate for one office to be able to fix everything to begin with.
Therefore be okay with someone with no attention span?
|
On November 02 2016 07:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:41 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:39 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 04:28 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity. People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned. the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there) The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical. But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion. On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise. See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad. I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Drumpf, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Drumpf is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it. What bullshit fascistic doomsday theories. Just repeat everything he says, add all the context you want. Or are you saying hes a liar? Sure that Russian agent stuff is far fetched but you dont need to go that far to see the obvious fascism. Did you even read Kwark's hypothetical justification post? Trump's an authoritarian on top many things, but no way in hell all the fascism and horror he predicted would come to pass with a Congress that hates his guts, a liberal activist court & bureacracy, and filibustering of bad appointments. It's about the cleanest example anyone can ask for of the flip side of tolerating anything Hillary does: predicting Trump's a future scary monster that makes it all okay.
You do realize he talked about purging all of Obama's appointees right
|
Last night at a rally Trump told Colorado supporters to vote twice, first by mail and then in person on election day, even though you're only supposed to go in person if you didn't send one in by mail. Trump said their mailed-in ballots probably wouldn't be counted.
|
Hm, maybe. I must admit I have not read it too closely either. But their own summary is pretty straightforward:
The central point that emerges from our research is
that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts
on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest
groups and average citizens have little or no independent
influence. (Gilens, Page)
The reason I even mention this study is that I feel that you overly simplify the impact of elites on the workings of society. For instance the candidates of the major parties have to pass several filters ensuring their conformity before you even get the chance to vote for or against them. One of those filters is the ability to raise money for a political campaign. A rather crass example of this kind of thing is the "Sheldon Adelson primary" of the GOP. But Democrat politicians face similar constraints. Another filter is a media which by now mostly consists of megacorporations owned by activist billionaires The media can promote or attack candidates, though their most powerful weapon though is simply ignoring people. A third filter is ideology. A candidate with heterodox views would have considerable difficulty of prevailing in either of the two major parties since most people he/she has to contend with share elite ideological positions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i acknowledge all of that, but it's more like a two step model in my view. the elites run the actual parties and government processes, and have a lot of influence within the degree of freedom allowed in those organs, as long as there is no significant popular resistance.
the public though are ultimately still in control, but with a power of rejection rather than framing their own policies. my point 4 is really the central question here.
another thing with u.s. democracy is that the upper-middle class and the middle class are largely aligned, (90% of the time according to their study) this is i think more of an obstacle to sanders style politics than elite control.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:
The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red.
NC is holding up, and so is her entire firewall. If things continue as they are at the moment I think she'll get 1-2 of the 6, and all of the firewall. A comfortable win. If they revert closer to the mean, 3-4. If they get any worse, just the firewall. She has a little more ground to lose but Florida was the final nail in Trump's coffin, losing ground there opens the election up. She's doing comfortably well in Nevada which already has some early voting results in, a NV win for her is enough to negate a NH loss. There are some 5/6+1 combinations that will work for Trump but not losing NV and winning NH. If he goes any less than 6/6 then he needs the 5/6 to include FL, NC and OH and the +1 to be MI or PA imo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Do you guys know at what time will they start to count the votes/have results? I will take next morning off in order to pull an all nighter 
|
On November 02 2016 08:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:
The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red. NC is holding up, and so is her entire firewall. If things continue as they are at the moment I think she'll get 1-2 of the 6, and all of the firewall. A comfortable win. If they revert closer to the mean, 3-4. If they get any worse, just the firewall. She has a little more ground to lose but Florida was the final nail in Trump's coffin, losing ground there opens the election up.
NC isn't likely to hold. It doesn't need to hold though, we should still be fine
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:
The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red. NC is holding up, and so is her entire firewall. If things continue as they are at the moment I think she'll get 1-2 of the 6, and all of the firewall. A comfortable win. If they revert closer to the mean, 3-4. If they get any worse, just the firewall. She has a little more ground to lose but Florida was the final nail in Trump's coffin, losing ground there opens the election up.
Well let's put it this way: Hillary's firewall corner states are about as safe as Florida was last week. More paths to victory have opened up for Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:08 SoSexy wrote:Do you guys know at what time will they start to count the votes/have results? I will take next morning off in order to pull an all nighter
Evening, exactly one week from today.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's really a turnout election. she should probably go full populist and policy for a week to get people more enthused. the bankers are already too scared of trump to care.
she's really not well served by the message strategy team. yea trump's huge negatives are juicy and polls well, but try focusing on issues that turn out your own voters. it's like these guys are simply polling monkeys
|
On November 02 2016 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 02 2016 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 06:32 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility. We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again. the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy? Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy. Why would people vote more often in the system you are imagining? Because they wouldn't accurately assess that their opinion doesn't really matter, as is the case in the current system. Because they would actually be taught the value of engagement in a system where it wasn't a lie. Because they wouldn't be buried under propaganda and money Just to name a few. Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:46 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 06:32 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility. We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again. the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy? Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy. hmm, "We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent" so you're saying engagement was always low? and it needs to be raised? what makes you think current voters' are insufficiently informed, and more importantly, how would you ACTUALLY do a better job of informing people; what makes you think this would actually result in systemic improvements? do you want mandatory voting? how much larger a percentage? by 1 point, 5, points, 10 points, 30 points? if not mandatory how would you get them to vote? Not "always" but basically. Have you talked to voters? My personal example was several Hillary delegates not knowing that Hillary was for the TPP and called it a gold standard, before she was against it. But you can pick any thing people should know and a disturbing amount of voters won't know. Not mandatory voting, but people should be ashamed of not voting more so than they are of their naked body. They should feel like they aren't living up to the most basic requirement of citizenry. This presumes that voting is practically accessible to everyone. I don't have a specific threshold. People like to vote, they don't vote because they perceive their votes don't matter, breaking that perception/reality means more people will participate, FOMO and all.
I dislike adding multiple quotes into one response, because it makes the quote chains harder for me to deal with, and can merge conversations, oh well.
I have talked to some voters, many of them are ignorant idiots, that's not news, it's been true since before forever.
Again, the question is HOW DO YOU FIX THAT? it's easy to say something's bad, it's quite another to propose a fix. And sometimes bad things are still around because there isn't any real fix to it. sometimes there are no answers, some things just aren't truly possible.
In order to judge things well requires a massive amount of education/information.
How will you assess whether someone has learned enough? if there's no assessment mechanism to check how informed someone is, then what's to stop people from just ignoring the information you try to provide them?
Many people are poor, many people are busy, there is a cost to acquiring information, how much time do you want them to spend on that? Is that actually an effective use of time, or are there better ways of organizing? how much money will it cost them to spend the time on things? what if they can't afford the monetary loss?
why should someone feel ashamed of not voting? What if they believe they are taking the best course of action for society? what if someone believes they are so ill informed they cannot add anything useful? There are many requirements of citizenry, voting is but one, and hardly necessary for a society to function.
Some people like to vote, not all do. The reality is on most issues people's votes don't matter, at least not for them; the expected utility numbers are very clear on this. It may be good for society (and even that is not so well proven), but not in the interest of individuals. Social pressure can change that, as can incentives and disincentives. Will you add those? how do you create social pressure? doing so is very difficult in practice. directing social change is VERY hard.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:06 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:
The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red. NC is holding up, and so is her entire firewall. If things continue as they are at the moment I think she'll get 1-2 of the 6, and all of the firewall. A comfortable win. If they revert closer to the mean, 3-4. If they get any worse, just the firewall. She has a little more ground to lose but Florida was the final nail in Trump's coffin, losing ground there opens the election up. Well let's put it this way: Hillary's firewall corner states are about as safe as Florida was last week. More paths to victory have opened up for Trump.
Nobody is saying the last 3 days have been good for her, I'm just saying that her position is still better than his. Her's is "if she loses much more ground she'll be in real trouble". His is "if I don't take much more ground I can't win".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
