|
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 November 11 2016 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:20 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I hate the outcome of this election but I honestly like the EC system, it puts a clamp on a majority/minority divide. The latter has to have a voice in democracies, which is ironically a point routinely pushed home by the same people who are now complaining about the EC. It can't be that 52% absolutely govern about 48%. I also don't think the technical look is very interesting in this case. The permanent divide is very real and deep, it doesn't even matter who has won. If we look away from the fact that EC doesn't actually do that because it isn't working: It's only one specific kind of minority though. Why is the line drawn there? What about the other minorities, shouldn't they get their votes to count for more as well? It's an artificial line drawn by tradition and history and not for any sensible reason. Presidental candidates can't ignore small states just because the bigger states happen to have a larger population. But as the system stands, they can, because the smallest states are nearly always safe states that doesn't matter. They're also ignoring the biggest states. Their only focus is on the few uncertain swing states that actually matter in the election race. That's not a good system at all. Not to mention that because the EC is also running a first past the post system, you can only ever have two nominees, who right now are controlled by big corporations through sponsorship. That's how you end up with two president candidates that no one wants. I think it's very important in a democracy that all minorities are heard and are not overruled by the masses and I think in many ways different groups have different ways of making themselves heard. I can't really go "I dislike this specific system because it strengthened the vote of a minority I don't happen to like". I think Trump is a terrible choice but it's not the mechanism that is at fault.
I agree. Majority/minority concept is important in a democracy. But it should also note that the majority should always rule, just not without focus on the minority. I dislike the current system because it ignores everyone except one specific group. Abolishing the EC would in all likelihood increase focus on several minorities, not just those based on population, rather than none of them which is the case right now.
The US is built upon tons and tons of minority groups that creates the whole. Having a system that attempts to only focus on one specific kind based on location rather than any actual groups of minorities is ridiculous in my opinion.
|
On November 11 2016 06:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:34 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:26 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:24 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:05 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:00 Introvert wrote:Don't look now, CNN projects Trump will win the popular vote. We'll see. It could at least put this EC discussion to bed again. And add another "wrong" to my prediction list. Trump winning the majority vote should not bed the EC discussion in my opinion. I don't think we should ignore a broken system just because it happen to correlate with a working one once in a while. People aren't just angry that Clinton won, but that the system allows for someone to win when the majority of people (who voted) voted for someone else, and that the large amount of people who didn't vote did so because for them in their state it didn't matter. Also I don't see that in the link. It still shows Clinton up in the popular vote. The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted. The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/presidentTheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidentialNeither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out. If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said  . You're most likely right. I also thought that initially but then I deferred to Introvert thinking that to post this he probably had seen a change there from Hillary to Trump as the projected winner of the popular vote instead of it being the same graphic for both sections. And I was too uninterested to check elsewhere, sorry for making you click a CNN link. I assumed whoever was working this desk at CNN was operating with the required competency.They aren't the only ones to point out he still has a shot. Don't remember where I saw the other one though. On November 11 2016 06:22 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:19 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:05 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:00 Introvert wrote:Don't look now, CNN projects Trump will win the popular vote. We'll see. It could at least put this EC discussion to bed again. And add another "wrong" to my prediction list. Trump winning the majority vote should not bed the EC discussion in my opinion. I don't think we should ignore a broken system just because it happen to correlate with a working one once in a while. People aren't just angry that Clinton won, but that the system allows for someone to win when the majority of people (who voted) voted for someone else, and that the large amount of people who didn't vote did so because for them in their state it didn't matter. Also I don't see that in the link. It still shows Clinton up in the popular vote. The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted. The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/presidentTheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidentialNeither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out. If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said . I still think he'll lose it, but if he won the popular vote, it would have the side effect of stopping this discussion. Maybe. It doesn't matter in the end, though. This loss for the Democrats should not be as biting as 2000. Think of the states Hillary lost: MI(?), WI, PA. Even states like Florida and Ohio. This wasn't really a nail-biter. She failed miserably in states that were supposed to be hers, and it's entirely her fault. The only "swing states" she won were CO and NV. (And VA, but I personally am moving that into the "blue" or "heavy lean blue" category myself.) You seem to think we're only attacking EC because Hillary lost to it. I, and most others, would be equally annoyed if Hillary won because of this broken system. It wont dampen the discussion because the system isn't going to suddenly be less broken if Trump gets a few more votes. Even if it happen to work as intended this time, what's stopping it from fucking you over the next time? People always complain, but there is no doubt it's amplified after elections. I wouldn't mind some reforms to it, but we aren't anywhere near that being a possibility, so I don't know how much effort should be expended talking about it here. I still oppose a purely popular vote though, so if you are arguing in favor of that... Popular vote with ranking is what I would be in favor of. You don't need any kind of system to protect the smaller states in the presidential election, that's what the house of representatives is for. If you have another system in mind I'm all ears. The house breakdown is based on population. The senate was originally intended to be a state's primary defense against the federal government, but that obviously doesn't apply anymore. I don't think you'd like my idea. Any system besides a direct election would probably result in more EC/popular vote splits than we have now. I like the idea of doing it by House district, but that would actually increase the odds a EC/popular vote split. But your democrat in Texas or Republican in CA has more chance of mattering, at least in one way. too bad oneofthem is banned, he's got his own weird system that I don't remember the details of. You can be sure it was technocratic, though 
I absolutely love the idea of a Technocracy. Unfortunately I would assume people who doesn't have a higher education might not share my enthusiasm  It's also completely untried so whether it works or not is uncertain at best.
|
On November 11 2016 06:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:33 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:27 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:24 Introvert wrote:
The states could change how their electors are awarded, maybe people should do some campaigning on the state level for that. The problem is, no state wants to undermine its own importance. But you wouldn't technically need an amendment to change that. There are states that agree to start lending their delegates to the popular vote winner if 270 electoral votes sign on the process and several other states have more lenient laws. But it is a pretty problematic issue. If only some states, or only one 'color' state joins in the system then in the short term they'll make the elected offices LESS representative. So it's a bit of shooting yourself in the foot unless you can get multiple states across the political spectrum to agree to something. Also Maine just got ranked ballot choices, but not for president. Still a big step. Ranked ballot would be ideal, but won't happen for presidential elections for a long time because they'd gut any chance of a 3rd party getting federal funding unless the federal government changed the rules around that (right? someone correct me if I am wrong). I've seen that. I oppose a popular vote election anyway, so it doesn't make me feel any better. Nevermind the shadiness of it. Shadiness how?
I replied in an edit, but we moved on:
Two things:
First of all, some argue it's actually unconstitutional. You are assigning electors as a state not based on what your state does (in any measure), but by what everyone else does. It essentially eliminates the EC entirely.
Some argue in encourages mass voter fraud, although with the stakes are high as they are in swing states I'm not sure that's true. It's a balance between having enough the swing the election, and cheating so hard in a state that you increase your chances of getting caught.
|
On November 11 2016 06:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:34 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:26 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:24 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:05 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:00 Introvert wrote:Don't look now, CNN projects Trump will win the popular vote. We'll see. It could at least put this EC discussion to bed again. And add another "wrong" to my prediction list. Trump winning the majority vote should not bed the EC discussion in my opinion. I don't think we should ignore a broken system just because it happen to correlate with a working one once in a while. People aren't just angry that Clinton won, but that the system allows for someone to win when the majority of people (who voted) voted for someone else, and that the large amount of people who didn't vote did so because for them in their state it didn't matter. Also I don't see that in the link. It still shows Clinton up in the popular vote. The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted. The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/presidentTheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidentialNeither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out. If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said . You're most likely right. I also thought that initially but then I deferred to Introvert thinking that to post this he probably had seen a change there from Hillary to Trump as the projected winner of the popular vote instead of it being the same graphic for both sections. And I was too uninterested to check elsewhere, sorry for making you click a CNN link. I assumed whoever was working this desk at CNN was operating with the required competency.They aren't the only ones to point out he still has a shot. Don't remember where I saw the other one though. On November 11 2016 06:22 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:19 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:05 Excludos wrote:On November 11 2016 06:00 Introvert wrote:Don't look now, CNN projects Trump will win the popular vote. We'll see. It could at least put this EC discussion to bed again. And add another "wrong" to my prediction list. Trump winning the majority vote should not bed the EC discussion in my opinion. I don't think we should ignore a broken system just because it happen to correlate with a working one once in a while. People aren't just angry that Clinton won, but that the system allows for someone to win when the majority of people (who voted) voted for someone else, and that the large amount of people who didn't vote did so because for them in their state it didn't matter. Also I don't see that in the link. It still shows Clinton up in the popular vote. The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted. The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/presidentTheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidentialNeither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out. If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said . I still think he'll lose it, but if he won the popular vote, it would have the side effect of stopping this discussion. Maybe. It doesn't matter in the end, though. This loss for the Democrats should not be as biting as 2000. Think of the states Hillary lost: MI(?), WI, PA. Even states like Florida and Ohio. This wasn't really a nail-biter. She failed miserably in states that were supposed to be hers, and it's entirely her fault. The only "swing states" she won were CO and NV. (And VA, but I personally am moving that into the "blue" or "heavy lean blue" category myself.) You seem to think we're only attacking EC because Hillary lost to it. I, and most others, would be equally annoyed if Hillary won because of this broken system. It wont dampen the discussion because the system isn't going to suddenly be less broken if Trump gets a few more votes. Even if it happen to work as intended this time, what's stopping it from fucking you over the next time? People always complain, but there is no doubt it's amplified after elections. I wouldn't mind some reforms to it, but we aren't anywhere near that being a possibility, so I don't know how much effort should be expended talking about it here. I still oppose a purely popular vote though, so if you are arguing in favor of that... Popular vote with ranking is what I would be in favor of (possibly with the option for parties to combine votes and run together. While that does obviously hinder progress, it also ensures one party doesn't get all the power to just do whatever they want. It has both negative and positive consequences). You don't need any kind of system to protect the smaller states in the presidential election, that's what the house of representatives is for. If you have another system in mind I'm all ears. The senate protects states with low population with 2 senators per state. The amount representatives a state sends to the house are based on population (with a minimum I think? Not sure).
Minimum one and it is proportional to 435 total seats so you can have situations where one state falls just under a cutoff to take another seat. Though the bigger problem with the House is on a local level where the representatives sent to the house don't represent the voting patterns of the state's population.
|
I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it's worth reading if you have the time. And also take a glance at the comments.
The Cinemax Theory of Racism
|
DNC Staffer Screams At Donna Brazile For Helping Elect Donald Trump
WASHINGTON ― On Thursday, Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss to Donald Trump in the presidential race. It didn’t go well.
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.
Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange.
Asked for comment, Brazile said in an email, “As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member for the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings.”
A DNC spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Brazile, a seasoned Democratic strategist, is the DNC’s interim chair until March 2017, when party officials hold a full DNC meeting to elect a new chair. Brazile has been filling in since July, when then-chair Wasserman Schultz stepped down after WikiLeaks released internal DNC emails showing party officials trying to help Clinton win the Democratic primary.
Brazile ran into her own bit of trouble in October when Wikileaks released emails showing that, in her role as a CNN strategist, she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Clinton’s campaign.
Neither of the DNC staffers who spoke to HuffPost knew Zach’s last name, or much about him. They noted that he wasn’t alone in his sentiments. Some in the room nodded as he spoke, they said, and after he left, some talked about him being right on some points (perhaps not his claims about imminent death by climate change).
A third attendee told HuffPost that, despite Zach’s blow-up, there was “overwhelming” support for Brazile in the room. Her motivational words “had some staffers in tears, per this attendee, and Brazile spoke to Zach’s concerns after he left.
“If he had stayed, he would have heard that,” this person said.
Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday’s meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.
“The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won’t let anyone else come in and change it up,” said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton’s loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?”
This article has been updated to include comment from a third meeting attendee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8?f019736x1ofscerk9
|
There's nothing inherently wrong with a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election. Most modern democracies have some mechanic that boosts representation for areas with low population, and that creates splits in tight elections when working as intended.
The thing that seems strange to me with the US system is that you have no ranking/preferences, and that all state electors act unanimously even if the vote within the state is very close.
Those are not directly related to a candidate winning the EC and losing the popular vote, though.
|
On November 11 2016 07:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:38 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:33 Introvert wrote:On November 11 2016 06:27 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 06:24 Introvert wrote:
The states could change how their electors are awarded, maybe people should do some campaigning on the state level for that. The problem is, no state wants to undermine its own importance. But you wouldn't technically need an amendment to change that. There are states that agree to start lending their delegates to the popular vote winner if 270 electoral votes sign on the process and several other states have more lenient laws. But it is a pretty problematic issue. If only some states, or only one 'color' state joins in the system then in the short term they'll make the elected offices LESS representative. So it's a bit of shooting yourself in the foot unless you can get multiple states across the political spectrum to agree to something. Also Maine just got ranked ballot choices, but not for president. Still a big step. Ranked ballot would be ideal, but won't happen for presidential elections for a long time because they'd gut any chance of a 3rd party getting federal funding unless the federal government changed the rules around that (right? someone correct me if I am wrong). I've seen that. I oppose a popular vote election anyway, so it doesn't make me feel any better. Nevermind the shadiness of it. Shadiness how? I replied in an edit, but we moved on: Two things: First of all, some argue it's actually unconstitutional. You are assigning electors as a state not based on what your state does (in any measure), but by what everyone else does. It essentially eliminates the EC entirely. Some argue in encourages mass voter fraud, although with the stakes are high as they are in swing states I'm not sure that's true. It's a balance between having enough the swing the election, and cheating so hard in a state that you increase your chances of getting caught.
Well its arguable, in that the EC electors are still the choice of the State Legislatures (since they passed the laws)... its at least as constitutional as having the people vote for president (after all the people are not the legislature)
|
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving.
|
On November 11 2016 07:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it's worth reading if you have the time. And also take a glance at the comments. The Cinemax Theory of Racism
Quite a bit wrong with the analogy to be honest. Politics has never been about agreeing with every single thing a party/politician has said or done. People really need to stop being ideologues and be at least a bit more pragmatic when discussing (and voting!) politics.
I voted for Hillary, but now that she lost, Trump is going to be President. With that in mind, why would people continue to go out and cry that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist, or, as this article argues, at least voted for racism. It is absurd, it is childish, and it isn't true.
There are many things for someone on the left to be legitimately concerned about now that it seems we have no control in either the executive or legislative branches of government (and we all know about the Supreme Court situation), but whether or not half of the country are racists or endorse racism isn't one of them.
|
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic).
So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore.
|
On November 11 2016 07:40 Belisarius wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election. Most modern democracies have some mechanic that boosts representation for areas with low population, and that creates splits in tight elections when working as intended.
The thing that seems strange to me with the US system is that you have no ranking/preferences, and that all state electors act unanimously even if the vote within the state is very close.
Those are not directly related to a candidate winning the EC and losing the popular vote, though.
Technically, the electors are allowed to vote for whoever they want (see WA state elector who is refusing to vote Clinton this year). Really, they haven't even agreed to vote Trump in yet and won't until later this month iirc.
There are two states that use some sort of proportional vote for certain districts (Maine and Nebraska both give an electoral vote to whoever wins a certain district but the rest of their electors are determined by statewide vote)
Also, Maine passed preferential voting this year.
|
On November 11 2016 07:41 LegalLord wrote:
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving.
Not looking to reignite old discussions, but I give it every bit as much to Comey's letter. Didn't quite a few states early vote under the impression that HRC would be investigated anew ?
|
I really wonder how liberals in the US will organise resistance now. Would be funny if the liberal side of the US now turns into city and state rights advocates with the backing of large parts of the tech economy.
|
Now looking at greatagain.gov and shivering thinking of the environmental impact ; those are definitely some promises he's not backtracking on.
' In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.'
'We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive "Waters of the US" rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. '
I can't see any mention of the Paris agreement. But it's not exactly compatible with such touting of fossil fuels
|
On November 11 2016 07:45 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:41 LegalLord wrote:
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving. Not looking to reignite old discussions, but I give it every bit as much to Comey's letter. Didn't quite a few states early vote under the impression that HRC would be investigated anew ?
Oh, I'm not talking about just the election. There is stuff we don't like about Hillary, but in this case they just randomly gave us more with which to bury the DNC leadership that Hillary helped to create. A good chance to clean house.
|
On November 11 2016 07:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:40 Belisarius wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election. Most modern democracies have some mechanic that boosts representation for areas with low population, and that creates splits in tight elections when working as intended.
The thing that seems strange to me with the US system is that you have no ranking/preferences, and that all state electors act unanimously even if the vote within the state is very close.
Those are not directly related to a candidate winning the EC and losing the popular vote, though. Technically, the electors are allowed to vote for whoever they want (see WA state elector who is refusing to vote Clinton this year). Really, they haven't even agreed to vote Trump in yet and won't until later this month iirc. There are two states that use some sort of proportional vote for certain districts (Maine and Nebraska both give an electoral vote to whoever wins a certain district but the rest of their electors are determined by statewide vote) Also, Maine passed preferential voting this year.
As to not imply otherwise Maine's preferential voting doesn't apply to the president.
|
On November 11 2016 07:44 Logo wrote:https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/Show nested quote +
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic). So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore.
Meh, the only reason I use FB for is to have contacts for a lot of friends I don't see often anymore. FB wants to be more than that and to have people use it and give them tons of ad money, but it seems most people just aren't too fond of it anymore.
|
On November 11 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:44 Logo wrote:https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic). So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore. Meh, the only reason I use FB for is to have contacts for a lot of friends I don't see often anymore. FB wants to be more than that and to have people use it and give them tons of ad money, but it seems most people just aren't too fond of it anymore.
yeah people hate it, but still constantly use it. But because they keep using it it keeps making money so it keeps going. And as it keeps going it's spitting out tons of misinformation (even if you tried to argue one side had more than the other long term you'd imagine it'd even out). At some people for it to stop existing or change people are actually going to have to abandon the platform.
It should also be especially vulnerable the more people that are using it to keep loose contacts since losing those people will ruin their only reason for using it.
|
On November 11 2016 06:59 Excludos wrote:I absolutely love the idea of a Technocracy. Unfortunately I would assume people who doesn't have a higher education might not share my enthusiasm It's also completely untried so whether it works or not is uncertain at best.
The most obviously apparently potential problem of a technocracy is that a lot of people with great technical expertise tend to be very bad administrators. They're very different skillsets even though there's some common ground and you want generally intelligent and experienced people doing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
