Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Have you voted? ;)


LasraelLarson
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

you literally have no clue....

..

2 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

and again, your understanding of the trend, is profoundly lacking.

but please continue with clutching pearls in a moral panic, the fainting couch industry will be booming.  because the tone deaf nature of mislabeling pretty much everything is only aiding the shift.  people are fed up.

Tyranny isn't exclusive possession of the right, but can occur on all spectrum of the political compass.

Yes, I must say I find it difficult to understand what you are talking about. Perhaps, as Doro said, there is some misunderstanding. Do try to use capital letters. Their lack is not only impolite, but makes communication even more difficult.

If you're really interested in my explanation of the relevance of Snyder's views to Poland, I am willing to elaborate. I find hilarious treating someone who had rifle bayonet stuck in one's stomach during martial law for persuasion sake as couch potato left-wing moaner.  

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doro said:

I think he's referring to the whole "speaking English" part, what with Quebec being so full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys (the French).

ah, well there he would be correct.  outside Montreal, if you don't speak French, you will get looks of subtle disdain, to outright contempt.  English can be spoken in Montreal, but even there has seen subtle shifts in the past decade or so.

1 hour ago, Jedy2 said:

..

Yes, I must say I find it difficult to understand what you are talking about. Perhaps, as Doro said, there is some misunderstanding. Do try to use capital letters. Their lack is not only impolite, but makes communication even more difficult.

If you're really interested in my explanation of the relevance of Snyder's views to Poland, I am willing to elaborate. I find hilarious treating someone who had rifle bayonet stuck in one's stomach during martial law for persuasion sake as couch potato left-wing moaner.  

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. 

Snyder needs to get out of his echo chamber, before he chokes on his own propaganda.  his application of the past to current circumstances is chronically tone deaf.

what is occurring in Poland currently,  is very different than what happened during the invasion of Poland in WW2.

and for clarity, "fainting couch" is a Victorian era reference, and has nothing to do with laziness, but rather rigid confines to a world moral view (tight corset & the resulting fainting due to lack of oxygen) limiting exposure to other viewpoints, offense culture, morale shaming and so on.  likewise to the pearl clutching, more outward moral shaming, feigning disgust, shock or horror all with the intention to sensor opposing views.

 

anyway, we all need to beware of the rising of the Fourth Riech, check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18.11.2016 at 9:07 PM, cossieuk said:

Right now most states results are known before any votes are cast.

This is quite obviously false and has been the reason many people claim to be surprised or shocked, even.

On 18.11.2016 at 9:07 PM, cossieuk said:

Switch this to the popular vote and all of a sudden every vote in every state means something.

Back in school, when we were told about that US election system, I was wondering why on earth someone would view it as superior, but hey, to each their own.

SNy

On 20.11.2016 at 9:55 AM, Jedy2 said:

Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience.

"If there's one thing that can be learnt from history it is that nothing is ever learnt from history." -- freely after Hegel and various others

SNy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SNy said:

This is quite obviously false and has been the reason many people claim to be surprised or shocked, even.

SNy

There were 11 swing states out of 50.  So I was correct in saying most states results were known.  The surprise was the polls were predicting different results in the 11 swing states than the actual result.  Most states went exactly as they always do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

There were 11 swing states out of 50.  So I was correct in saying most states results were known.  The surprise was the polls were predicting different results in the 11 swing states than the actual result.  Most states went exactly as they always do

Alright, maybe the reporting here has me confused and this is all much clearer to someone how took a greater interest because he lives there or whatever. But if I look at the result map, then it is mostly blue. In order for Clinton to win, it should have been mostly red, no?

If anything, what one can deduct from the outcome is that "most results are known beforehand" means zilch and is therefore a non-argument for not voting.

SNy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SNy said:

Alright, maybe the reporting here has me confused and this is all much clearer to someone how took a greater interest because he lives there or whatever. But if I look at the result map, then it is mostly blue. In order for Clinton to win, it should have been mostly red, no?

If anything, what one can deduct from the outcome is that "most results are known beforehand" means zilch and is therefore a non-argument for not voting.

SNy

Clinton is blue.

There are many people that dont vote as they feel that there vote wont matter, and individually they are right 1 vote does not matter, but given the number that dont vote it adds up, especially in states where the result always goes the same way.  Voter apathy is a big problem that needs to be addressed.  Voter turnout is estimated to be 58%, down from 61.6% in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Clinton is blue.

There are many people that dont vote as they feel that there vote wont matter, and individually they are right 1 vote does not matter, but given the number that dont vote it adds up, especially in states where the result always goes the same way.  Voter apathy is a big problem that needs to be addressed.  Voter turnout is estimated to be 58%, down from 61.6% in 2008.

There were also many people who didn't vote because it was Clinton instead of Sanders. Those people are more respectable than many I saw who went from badmouthing Clinton in the primaries but then getting behind her when she got ahead of Sanders. I can see why they didn't want to vote when their candidate wasn't even running. Shit, I can see why many Americans refused to vote at all. It must feel like endorsing a system they don't even like to start with.

But, as we all know, there won't be any change to the election process in the western world. As much as there's voter apathy, it seems there's just an apathy in general for most things. Just think of all the immoral shit the US government has done, and how it has never been addressed, simply because "the people" just don't care. As long as they can still get in their cars in the morning, do their 9 till 5, watch a bit of telly in the evening, and do it all again the next day, it really isn't worth any effort to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of the Sanders supports are happy that Trump won, not many is my guess.  By not voting they didnt do anything to stop Trump.  I suspect many of them just expected Clinton to win and didnt go and vote.  I wonder how many would go and vote now if given the chance

No voting system really works for everyone, but the US system seems to me something that needs to be updated.  How hard can it be to just pick the person that gets the most votes over the whole country.  I think this would help encourage more people to go and vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

How hard can it be to just pick the person that gets the most votes over the whole country.  I think this would help encourage more people to go and vote.  

It's not hard, but then it's also not a reasonable system. As was already mentioned, the majority population of the country can be found in only 15 states. If they decide to vote for one thing because it benefits them in their little metropolitan lives, but all the other states will suffer for it, then you end up with a nation that splinters and fragments. A federation can only exist if all of the member states get a say in it (I'm looking at you, EU), and that won't happen if it just comes down to total votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SNy said:

Alright, maybe the reporting here has me confused and this is all much clearer to someone how took a greater interest because he lives there or whatever. But if I look at the result map, then it is mostly blue. In order for Clinton to win, it should have been mostly red, no?

If anything, what one can deduct from the outcome is that "most results are known beforehand" means zilch and is therefore a non-argument for not voting.

SNy

Below is a link to the electoral map. (this is an early version from shortly after the election)

If you drill down on individual states it will show quite clearly that votes for blue (Hillary/Democratic Party) are concentrated in cities for the most part. I also found it interesting that in Texas Democratic votes are also strong along the Mexico border. (I got a chuckle out of that)

Exception to the above are in California, New York... that are heavily Democrat and high population and this explains why Hllary won the popular vote while losing the majority of the USA as a whole.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

 

Edit:

Electoral map for 2008 when Obama beat McCain.

2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.

Electoral map for 1984 when Reagan won every state except Minnesota:

500px-1984nationwidecountymapshadedbyvot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doro said:

It's not hard, but then it's also not a reasonable system. As was already mentioned, the majority population of the country can be found in only 15 states. If they decide to vote for one thing because it benefits them in their little metropolitan lives, but all the other states will suffer for it, then you end up with a nation that splinters and fragments. A federation can only exist if all of the member states get a say in it (I'm looking at you, EU), and that won't happen if it just comes down to total votes.

It doesnt matter where the people live, it only matters what the majority vote for.   Trump is only the 5th US president to lose the popular vote.  Each vote counts the same no matter where you live.  Under the current system the number of votes per Electoral Collage Vote can be widely different for one state to another meaning votes in some states count more than others.  Also the current system means that the actual votes cast by the public can be ignored by the Electoral Collage and they can vote however they want.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

It doesnt matter where the people live, it only matters what the majority vote for.

Of course it matters where people live. The issue being that in a federation of multiple nation-sized states, if only a small handful of these states hold the voting power, the other states won't get any say in the matter and will always get fucked over. A nation the size of the US will always struggle, especially when they are so deeply divided on every issue. But making it a popular vote only results in a few states having more power over others. A state should simply vote for their preferred candidate, and whoever wins the most states wins the election. None of this electoral college stuff or appealing to swing states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wont having 1 vote per state just favour the party who has the voters spread over the larger area, not necessarily the most votes.  Also this could still lead to swing states, with candidates focusing on the states that have close results.  Removing the states means that candidates need to campaign all over to get as many votes all over the country rather than just focusing on a few areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Wont having 1 vote per state just favour the party who has the voters spread over the larger area, not necessarily the most votes.  Also this could still lead to swing states, with candidates focusing on the states that have close results.

Well no, it would favour the party who has the most states backing them, instead of the most densely populated cities. For example, Texas is a wider area than New Jersey, but they'd both be equal for a vote.

And while it's true that swing states could still exist, they certainly wouldn't be due to weighting. Now all balanced states would be worth the same as each other, instead of some having more electoral votes than others.

9 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Removing the states means that candidates need to campaign all over to get as many votes all over the country rather than just focusing on a few areas

That would mean the exact opposite. Without states, they would simply look at areas with the highest populations and ignore the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's representative democracy, the same as we have in Australia and the UK.  You vote for a representative who then represents that electorate in government decisions (in this particular instance, the choice of head of state).  In fact we've had the same situation here in Australia in the past where the two party preferred vote was actually in favour of the Labor party but the Liberals won because the Labor vote was heavily concentrated in a number of electorates.  It's one of the disadvantages of the system, but direct democracy has it's own substantial drawbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the way the USA elects their Senate and House of Representatives is a good combination. You need a majority of citizens and a majority of states to control both I think. I don't know what the best solution is for presidential elections. The current solution isn't perfect, but only the popular vote isn't good either, because then the map would be 85-90% red. Ideally you want a candidate that wins both the most states and the popular vote. But then there wouldn't be a president this time ;)

Maybe don't give all state electors to the winner of the state, but award them proportionally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darmokk said:

Whatever the theory is...

... in practice what those who defend the EC right now really want to keep is the uneven voting power per voter.

Been that way since it was formed in the first place. Known factor accepted and built into its creation for reasons already mentioned in this thread. Senate works the same way regarding effective voting power per voter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...