|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 01 2023 07:34 JimmiC wrote:
Do average Americans even think this kind of thing is a big deal anymore? It feels like it is always happening and then gets solved.
Polls consistently show republicans are overwhelmingly blamed for this stuff, so it’s all bluster. It is an opportunity to virtue signal and reinforce the necessity of the culture war. But it will never actually go anywhere
|
On May 02 2023 15:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2023 07:34 JimmiC wrote:
Do average Americans even think this kind of thing is a big deal anymore? It feels like it is always happening and then gets solved.
Polls consistently show republicans are overwhelmingly blamed for this stuff, so it’s all bluster. It is an opportunity to virtue signal and reinforce the necessity of the culture war. But it will never actually go anywhere
I'm willing to bet that republicans' voters also overwhelmingly don't give a crap about this. So the politicians don't care if they get blamed or not. Meanwhile, the democratic voters do care about government financing working, blame the republicans, but seeing as they were never voting republicans anyway, it's irrelevant.
The main question isn't: who gets blamed. It's who gets blamed by swing voters who give a crap about this topic.
|
A core problem in the US system where only a very small amount of voters and votes actually matter.
You basically only matter if you are in a swing state, and then if you could potentially vote for both parties. All other votes are basically irrelevant, and thus what they think also doesn't matter.
|
On May 03 2023 02:37 Simberto wrote:
A core problem in the US system where only a very small amount of voters and votes actually matter.
You basically only matter if you are in a swing state, and then if you could potentially vote for both parties. All other votes are basically irrelevant, and thus what they think also doesn't matter.
Or if you're potentially not voting instead of voting for one party.
But yeah, if you're in most states, your vote doesn't matter for the presidency or Senate. It might matter for your house rep.
That being said, your vote might also matter for statewide elections such as governor or state supreme court justice, or more regional elections such as your representation in the state legislature. Your vote also probably matters for more local elections such as county and city officials, or your local school board.
So while it's true that realistically your vote for president is just padding your candidate's numbers, it's definitely wrong to say that your vote doesn't matter.
|
Statewide elections tend to be basically the same as presidential elections regarding whether it's in a swing state or not. It's really not that different for district and more local elections other than the inertia can be lower because of the scale or higher because the population is isolated and insular.
|
I think its defeatist to think your vote doesnt matter unless you are in a swing state.
Things change. It may not be as fast as youd like but its always important to be counted.
Here is a map of one of Ronald Reagan's presidential wins. Can you imagine california going republican any time soon? Things change.
The idea of trying to minimize the least amount of votes that "dont matter" is how we got the gerrymandered mess we have been in for decades with all these safe districts. People who drew congressional maps decided they didnt want 49 to 51 races because then 49% of people would get no voice. Better to have 10 seats with all of them 65 35 then 51 49 and give the minority 2 or 3 of the 10 seats.
|
The probability of a single vote swinging a presidential election is very close to 0. 2000 was the closest in our lifetimes and it was still hundreds of votes difference. In that sense your vote for President matters about the same no matter what state you live in.
|
Well, your vote doesn't matter up until the point that everyone collectively decides their vote doesn't matter and suddenly you're losing elections you could've won. Your vote is unlikely to change the tide, but as soon as you start thinking it's meaningless, then it becomes so through you not voting. We talk all the time about turnout being critical every election, and how it swung a critical race to an unlikely outcome that changed the entire landscape. The reason the Republicans' stupid debt ceiling bill is just a fart in the wind is because Pennsylvania and Georgia turned out and gave Democrats the Senate. Nobody thought Georgia was a swing state, and Oz's opponent was recovering from a stroke.
Turnout isn't just some abstract number, it's convincing people that their vote matters. Your vote matters not because it's the 1 vote that won the race, it's because if people like you didn't vote then the wrong person ends up winning. It's an extremely unintuitive numbers game, but the vote matters. Use it.
|
voting is a moral obligation to the people in history who fought for you to have the ability to. Even if you hate all the candidates, writing in something is still a non-zero impact. Participation in the improvement of the world you did nothing to earn is a moral imperative IMO.
You can't just walk into the world, buy some medicine, drive on some roads, and enjoy some culture and then peace out. By making the world better for who comes after you, you earn what you were given by the people who came before you.
|
On May 03 2023 10:27 BlackJack wrote:
The probability of a single vote swinging a presidential election is very close to 0. 2000 was the closest in our lifetimes and it was still hundreds of votes difference. In that sense your vote for President matters about the same no matter what state you live in.
I don't understand you logic at all here. If a single vote can change an election is irrelevant. Look at it this way instead: Trump lost California with just over 5 million votes. The US voting system works so that 5 million more Trump votes there would not even swing the Californian EC, and would be completely irrelevant. Great, huh?
Then compare that to the mere thousands in key states which could have swung the EC for Hillary.
There are some very good reasons why almost all presidental elections go by popular vote only.
|
On May 04 2023 04:31 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2023 10:27 BlackJack wrote:
The probability of a single vote swinging a presidential election is very close to 0. 2000 was the closest in our lifetimes and it was still hundreds of votes difference. In that sense your vote for President matters about the same no matter what state you live in. I don't understand you logic at all here. If a single vote can change an election is irrelevant. Look at it this way instead: Trump lost California with just over 5 million votes. The US voting system works so that 5 million more Trump votes there would not even swing the Californian EC, and would be completely irrelevant. Great, huh? Then compare that to the mere thousands in key states which could have swung the EC for Hillary. There are some very good reasons why almost all presidental elections go by popular vote only.
And most non-presidential elections do the same.
In a representative system, your vote always matters. In the US, the system is so stupidly gamefied that most votes are irrelevant.
Doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote, but it does mean that the US system sucks.
|
On May 04 2023 04:31 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2023 10:27 BlackJack wrote:
The probability of a single vote swinging a presidential election is very close to 0. 2000 was the closest in our lifetimes and it was still hundreds of votes difference. In that sense your vote for President matters about the same no matter what state you live in. I don't understand you logic at all here. If a single vote can change an election is irrelevant. Look at it this way instead: Trump lost California with just over 5 million votes. The US voting system works so that 5 million more Trump votes there would not even swing the Californian EC, and would be completely irrelevant. Great, huh? Then compare that to the mere thousands in key states which could have swung the EC for Hillary. There are some very good reasons why almost all presidental elections go by popular vote only.
Yes, mathematically your vote matters less if you are from California but it’s not quite correct to say it doesn’t matter. The logic of “well I’m from California so my vote doesn’t matter because it’s not going to change who wins” can also be applied to any state because your vote is extremely unlikely to change who wins. It’s an excuse to not vote. This post isn’t a defense of the electoral college.
|
On May 04 2023 05:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2023 04:31 Slydie wrote:On May 03 2023 10:27 BlackJack wrote:
The probability of a single vote swinging a presidential election is very close to 0. 2000 was the closest in our lifetimes and it was still hundreds of votes difference. In that sense your vote for President matters about the same no matter what state you live in. I don't understand you logic at all here. If a single vote can change an election is irrelevant. Look at it this way instead: Trump lost California with just over 5 million votes. The US voting system works so that 5 million more Trump votes there would not even swing the Californian EC, and would be completely irrelevant. Great, huh? Then compare that to the mere thousands in key states which could have swung the EC for Hillary. There are some very good reasons why almost all presidental elections go by popular vote only. Yes, mathematically your vote matters less if you are from California but it’s not quite correct to say it doesn’t matter. The logic of “well I’m from California so my vote doesn’t matter because it’s not going to change who wins” can also be applied to any state because your vote is extremely unlikely to change who wins. It’s an excuse to not vote. This post isn’t a defense of the electoral college.
My point is that it is about quantity. A single never matters, but if millions of votes in the wrong places don't matter, you have a major problem. If Texas flips blue the same way Florida has flipped red, the Republicans are screwed, so it can be equally terrible for both parties.
Other countries do have similar issues with regional and specific party votes being OP, just not at the same scale.
|
United States24740 Posts
One of the latest flag officer nominations will take over my office, but it's one of the many that are being held up by Tuberville right now. If we can't get the new person in before the old one retires, then I'll hold down the fort!
|
|
|
United States43219 Posts
On May 07 2023 02:47 micronesia wrote:
I'll hold down the fort! Hold the fort. It’s not a bouncy castle that got filled with helium in a tragic accident, it’s a fortress that is being handed from one commander to another.
|
United States24740 Posts
On May 07 2023 02:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2023 02:47 micronesia wrote:
One of the latest flag officer nominations will take over my office, but it's one of the many that are being held up by Tuberville right now. If we can't get the new person in before the old one retires, then I'll hold down the fort! What does a flag officer do? And why is he holding it up? Like it is purely a political stunt or is there a reason?
Flag officer basically means General or Admiral. Here is one of many articles discussing the issue: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/politics/senate-hold-military-nominations/index.html
Basically, Tuberville is using his position to hold up military nominations: "Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville has single-handedly blocked the nominations to protest new Pentagon policies ensuring service members have access to reproductive health care following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade last year." It's readily available to read about from multiple news sources.
On May 07 2023 02:56 KwarK wrote:Hold the fort. It’s not a bouncy castle that got filled with helium in a tragic accident, it’s a fortress that is being handed from one commander to another.
Per https://grammarist.com/idiom/hold-the-fort-and-hold-down-the-fort/ "The variation hold down the fort is an Americanism that came into use in the late 1800s-early 1900s, using the slang phrase hold down which meant to occupy."
You may not agree with the newer usage, but good luck stopping it!
|
United States43219 Posts
It’s meaningless. Holding the fort means exactly what it implies. The responsibility for the continuation of the enterprise is being passed from one individual to another. Holding down the fort is nonsense, but is used when people are describing holding the fort.
It’s like if Americans started saying “kill two birds with one stone down”. It just doesn’t achieve the goal of the metaphor.
|
United States24740 Posts
If you go back far enough, I think that describes like the majority of language. Anyway, I conveyed my meaning in accordance with the norms of my language, so mission accomplished.
|
United States43219 Posts
But the original version of the metaphor is still in use and still exactly describes the meaning. This isn’t some evolution of language where the original intent is lost to time, there are two versions, one which makes perfect sense and one that doesn’t.
I am fully prepared to die down on this hill. Holding down the fort is as correct as “would of”. If in a hundred years Americans all use “would of” and Brits all use “would’ve” I hope someone tells you that language evolves and that both are equally valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/4/24/1429867720489/d39636d8-504c-453a-994b-4c0aa442397e-540x497.png?width=445&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
