Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#377 Dec 06 2016 at 9:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what people are claiming when they say things like "Trumps win should have an asterisk next to it". That somehow, because he won the election without winning the popular vote, it makes his win less of a win (or less "legitimate", right?).

No. Maybe it hurts your feelings that someone would point out exceptional circumstances but that's not the same as saying it's not legitimate.


There are no exceptional circumstances though. That's the point. The mere act of claiming there's something wrong, unusual, or exceptional about a popular vote count not matching the EC vote count is about delegitimizing the outcome. The underlying assumption is that Trump shouldn't have won because Clinton won the popular vote, followed by an argument to change the election process to match how it should be. There's no point in saying it if you don't think that the system we use is wrong. Which means you think that the outcome is wrong. He only won by a technicality which we should fix, right? You're splitting linguistic hairs to argue that's not the same as saying his win isn't legitimate.

Quote:
Quote:
They're the ones who know the rules of the game, but then embark on a strategy that fails to win, but succeeds in something else (and then complain about it, apparently). That's the disconnect. And IMO, that's what should be fixed. You don't fix the rules. You change the way you play.

It's the presidency, not a sports contest.


And? The disconnect is still on the person who used the wrong strategy.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not trivializing though

Said the guy comparing the presidency to baseball...


It's an analogy, not a comparison.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#378 Dec 06 2016 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Quote:
You don't fix the rules. You change the way you play.

Not if you believe the rules are broken. Laws change. Sports games have a long history of rules changes.

I get it, you don't think the system is broken, but those who do are perfectly justified in advocating for change.
#379 Dec 06 2016 at 10:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Allegory wrote:
Quote:
You don't fix the rules. You change the way you play.

Not if you believe the rules are broken. Laws change. Sports games have a long history of rules changes.


First off, it's not about the rules being "broken" or "not broken". It's whether the rules are "better than the alternatives". I'm trying to avoid absolutes here. There is no perfect solution for this.

Quote:
I get it, you don't think the system is broken, but those who do are perfectly justified in advocating for change.


Ok. Again, rejecting the "broken" language, let's rephrase that as "those who believe there is a better system we could use". Do you agree with that terminology?

If so, then it's quite reasonable for me to expect you to have some form of well thought out alternative proposal, including a good strong argument for why that alternative is better (and perhaps, at the risk of repeating myself, even maybe defining the criteria for "better"). I'll repeat my point that it bothers me when people advocate for change, but their argument consists entirely of why the current thing is broken/wrong/bad/whatever, and not any argument about why their alternative is better. You don't just change something. You change it from what it is to something else. An assessment of that "something else" is somewhat key for advocating for that change.

It just seems like way too many people forget that important component. I'll point out (again) that I have repeatedly written about the effects of making a change to a pure popular vote (or any of several other proposals), including how it may affect campaigning, how it may affect representation, and whether those things are "better" for determining who should be president. I've done the work here, but I'm not seeing much by anyone else other than to merely state what they want. That's great. Small children want candy too. Do you have any other reason for advocating for this change?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#380 Dec 06 2016 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,366 posts
gbaji wrote:
If so, then it's quite reasonable for me to expect you to have some form of well thought out alternative proposal, including a good strong argument for why that alternative is better (and perhaps, at the risk of repeating myself, even maybe defining the criteria for "better").
No. That would be the opposite of "quite reasonable".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#381 Dec 06 2016 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Quote:
First off, it's not about the rules being "broken" or "not broken". It's whether the rules are "better than the alternatives". I'm trying to avoid absolutes here. There is no perfect solution for this.

These are identical statements, but if it makes you feel better, sure why not.

You act as if we haven't been discussing the EC for the past few pages now. There is a well thought out alternative, popular voting, we've been talking about it. I have made several arguments as to why it is better. Pointing out why the EC is bad in relation to a popular vote IS pointing out why it is better. I also did an assessment of the problems, one of which you took from me several pages later (recount difficulty).

You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.

Edited, Dec 6th 2016 10:42pm by Allegory
#382 Dec 06 2016 at 11:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There are no exceptional circumstances though

Of course there is. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is rare. By its very nature, it's exceptional and deserves to be noted. The only one throwing a hissy fit about that supposedly meaning that it's not legitimate is you.
Quote:
It's an analogy, not a comparison.

It's a pointless analogy because I could just as easily say "In equestrian sports, you are scored based on a point total for several events!" or whatever. And baseball has as much to do with selecting the president as horse-riding does so, uh... well, kind of a pointless analogy, really.
Allegory wrote:
You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.

He reads it, he just doesn't like it and tries to use "you never answered me" as a tactic when he doesn't have a better answer. We spent ten+ years of SSM debate with him doing the exact same thing.

Edited, Dec 6th 2016 11:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#383 Dec 07 2016 at 2:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Quote:
And? The disconnect is still on the person who used the wrong strategy.


Yes, but the most correct strategy under the EC would be to tax anyone in states that you won't win and promise that money to swing states, if elected. There is no way that that would be a toxic strategy for the country.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#384 Dec 07 2016 at 3:08 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Well, you see, the EC is like the Holy See in that's it's Holy and includes the sound C oh no we'll never be free from its tyranny hang complainants from the nearest tree whether it be holly oak or ebony throw them into the sea like Bostonian tea drown them as traitors as traitors they be any american against the EC is not an American to me haha hee hee let's talk about it in more than two threads let's make it three aha haha hee hee I have lost the plot you see I am well and true-ely mad as a hatter's bee trying to spell Nietzche in a spelling bee without the letter T

____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#385 Dec 07 2016 at 3:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
從1到10多少白酒
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#386 Dec 07 2016 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
长干杯方式
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#387 Dec 07 2016 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Well, you see, the EC is like the Holy See in that's it's Holy and includes the sound C oh no we'll never be free from its tyranny hang complainants from the nearest tree whether it be holly oak or ebony throw them into the sea like Bostonian tea drown them as traitors as traitors they be any american against the EC is not an American to me haha hee hee let's talk about it in more than two threads let's make it three aha haha hee hee I have lost the plot you see I am well and true-ely mad as a hatter's bee trying to spell Nietzche in a spelling bee without the letter T

Hey! That rhymes!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#388 Dec 07 2016 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Quote:
And several studies that have consistently shown somewhere between 6-7% of respondents identifying themselves as illegal immigrants reporting that they voted.


I found one study which originally claimed that. However when they followed up on non-citizens who reported that they voted, it turned out that they checked the wrong box and were citizens.

Rick Scott famously charged into the issue in Florida, vowing to purge non-citizens from the voter rolls. After much kerfuffle and expense, 85 people out of an original list of 182,000 possible targets were eliminated. That's well under 1%, and there was no evidence that any of them actually voted.

If you have reliable citations for your claims, by all means let's have a look at them. I am as much against election fraud as you are.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#389 Dec 07 2016 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,900 posts
gbaji wrote:
I would not at all be surprised if the number was in excess of 1 million though,
I'm not at all surprised you would believe that.
Samira wrote:
If you have reliable citations for your claims, by all means let's have a look at them.
The lack of reliable citations is the proof that everyone that doesn't vote Republican is voting illegally.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#390 Dec 07 2016 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
***
3,046 posts
gbaji wrote:
There are no exceptional circumstances though. That's the point. The mere act of claiming there's something wrong, unusual, or exceptional about a popular vote count not matching the EC vote count is about delegitimizing the outcome. The underlying assumption is that Trump shouldn't have won because Clinton won the popular vote, followed by an argument to change the election process to match how it should be. There's no point in saying it if you don't think that the system we use is wrong. Which means you think that the outcome is wrong. He only won by a technicality which we should fix, right? You're splitting linguistic hairs to argue that's not the same as saying his win isn't legitimate.


Actually having been on by-laws committees, the process is that when more then one person feel that there is a problem with the rules, you create a committee to discus the problem with the current rules and try to develop rule chances that will work. We currently only at the point of saying there is a problem with how the EC works verses the Popular Vote. Various people have pipe in on what they see is the problem and offered ideas on how to fit the problem.

If enough of us complain to our representatives, then they may call for a Committee to look into changing how we elect our Presidents. It's been chanced over the years before now an it can be done again if enough American Citizens feel that it must be done. What the change may be will take time to work out and should be written by experts in the field of probability. I just know that you and I aren't experts in Mathematics.

What I do know is the Framers of our current system, created it this way to prevent the common citizen from electing a Populist like Donald Trump from getting elected.

When it creates the problem it was design to prevent, we have a problem.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#391 Dec 08 2016 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Quote:
What I do know is the Framers of our current system, created it this way to prevent the common citizen from electing a Populist like Donald Trump from getting elected.

Elne, well except for the current system being like it was framed and Trump being a populist.
#392 Dec 08 2016 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
***
3,046 posts
Allegory wrote:
Quote:
What I do know is the Framers of our current system, created it this way to prevent the common citizen from electing a Populist like Donald Trump from getting elected.

Elne, well except for the current system being like it was framed and Trump being a populist.


That is what I was saying in Elnese. Learn to translate my poor attempts to English.

My Language Processing Disorder strikes again
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#393 Dec 08 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Allegory wrote:
Quote:
First off, it's not about the rules being "broken" or "not broken". It's whether the rules are "better than the alternatives". I'm trying to avoid absolutes here. There is no perfect solution for this.

These are identical statements, but if it makes you feel better, sure why not.


No, they're not. When something is broken it is non functional. The EC certainly functions. It accomplishes the purpose it's created for (determining who wins the election and becomes President of the US). Everything else is a discussion involving opinions about better or worse alternatives.

Quote:
There is a well thought out alternative, popular voting, we've been talking about it. I have made several arguments as to why it is better. Pointing out why the EC is bad in relation to a popular vote IS pointing out why it is better. I also did an assessment of the problems, one of which you took from me several pages later (recount difficulty).


My issue is that so far the arguments for popular vote are pretty circular. It's basically "we should use a direct popular vote because a direct popular vote is better". I'm asking for an argument *why* it's better. And not just "because then each person's vote counts the same" because that's still circular (that's inherent to the very thing you're arguing for). As I've said repeatedly, the differences between direct nationwide popular vote and the EC system is effectively the difference between choosing to have a Democracy or a Republic. We have a Republic. We use a process of indirect representation in every other decision, selection, and appointment made at the federal level of our government. Why chuck out that concept for this one thing? The answer to that is what I'm trying to get here (and failing so far).

Quote:
You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.


I've read everything that has been written in this thread. You are correct that you have raised several points. However, they have also been responded to with counter points. The normal response to that is to address the counter point, not just repeat the same starting point again. It's more like you are pretending that I haven't already responded to what you wrote (or in a couple cases, someone else did). At least that's how it feels from my point of view.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#394 Dec 08 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Allegory wrote:
You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.

He reads it, he just doesn't like it and tries to use "you never answered me" as a tactic when he doesn't have a better answer.


Which is ironic given that's exactly what Allegory is claiming here. I don't say "you never answered me". I assess the response and reply to it. Saying "here's why your response isn't correct" isn't the same as denying that the person responded in the first place. I have responded to several of Allegory's posts. In each case, I have gone step by step through his response and countered it with my own argument. I have never just said that he didn't say anything (because that would be an odd response in and of itself, right?).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#395 Dec 08 2016 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Um...

gbaji wrote:
And several studies that have consistently shown somewhere between 6-7% of respondents identifying themselves as illegal immigrants reporting that they voted. Of course, these studies are often "debunked" by showing how, when they went back to those who reported this and asked them about it in a second round, they either denied voting, or claimed that they were mistaken when they said they were here illegally. Cause there would be no reason to do that other than to just clear up a misunderstanding, right? The whole "it's a felony and automatic grounds for deportation" perhaps ranking pretty darn high.


Samira wrote:
Quote:
And several studies that have consistently shown somewhere between 6-7% of respondents identifying themselves as illegal immigrants reporting that they voted.


I found one study which originally claimed that. However when they followed up on non-citizens who reported that they voted, it turned out that they checked the wrong box and were citizens.


Yeah. It's almost like I responded to you before you even responded. I'm freaking psychic!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#396 Dec 09 2016 at 12:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Quote:
First off, it's not about the rules being "broken" or "not broken". It's whether the rules are "better than the alternatives". I'm trying to avoid absolutes here. There is no perfect solution for this.

These are identical statements, but if it makes you feel better, sure why not.


No, they're not. When something is broken it is non functional. The EC certainly functions. It accomplishes the purpose it's created for (determining who wins the election and becomes President of the US). Everything else is a discussion involving opinions about better or worse alternatives.

Quote:
There is a well thought out alternative, popular voting, we've been talking about it. I have made several arguments as to why it is better. Pointing out why the EC is bad in relation to a popular vote IS pointing out why it is better. I also did an assessment of the problems, one of which you took from me several pages later (recount difficulty).


My issue is that so far the arguments for popular vote are pretty circular. It's basically "we should use a direct popular vote because a direct popular vote is better". I'm asking for an argument *why* it's better. And not just "because then each person's vote counts the same" because that's still circular (that's inherent to the very thing you're arguing for). As I've said repeatedly, the differences between direct nationwide popular vote and the EC system is effectively the difference between choosing to have a Democracy or a Republic. We have a Republic. We use a process of indirect representation in every other decision, selection, and appointment made at the federal level of our government. Why chuck out that concept for this one thing? The answer to that is what I'm trying to get here (and failing so far).

Quote:
You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.


I've read everything that has been written in this thread. You are correct that you have raised several points. However, they have also been responded to with counter points. The normal response to that is to address the counter point, not just repeat the same starting point again. It's more like you are pretending that I haven't already responded to what you wrote (or in a couple cases, someone else did). At least that's how it feels from my point of view.


I already listed the goals. Explicitly here are some of the more important benefits, now with 100% more cross posting in this thread!

1. Enfranchisement; current electoral rules means very few votes matter, with fairly arcane reasons as to why they are they are the only people we should really listen to.
2. Political signalling; we should have a system that is more able to deal with nuance and reward people for doing things that voters want.
3; Political compromise; If the game is non-zero sum there are vastly more opportunities to come to sane, net benefit policies
4; Better governance; Good governance is wholly related to winning elections in the current system. This seems like a bad method for governance...When political signalling has more depth, and compromise enabled you will naturally get better governance. (or at least less cases of bad governance)
5; Continuity of policy; if policy changes are made on a continuum consensus rather than drastic sea changes, you generate less uncertainty, which is good for markets.
6; Lower potential for corruption; If people have more political options, the costs of not internally policing corruption are higher.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#397 Dec 09 2016 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Allegory wrote:
You don't get to pretend I haven't made the case because you didn't feel like reading.

He reads it, he just doesn't like it and tries to use "you never answered me" as a tactic when he doesn't have a better answer.


Which is ironic given that's exactly what Allegory is claiming here. I don't say "you never answered me". I assess the response and reply to it. Saying "here's why your response isn't correct" isn't the same as denying that the person responded in the first place. I have responded to several of Allegory's posts. In each case, I have gone step by step through his response and countered it with my own argument. I have never just said that he didn't say anything (because that would be an odd response in and of itself, right?).


I already listed the goals. Explicitly here are some of the more important benefits, now with 200% more cross posting in this thread!

1. Enfranchisement; current electoral rules means very few votes matter, with fairly arcane reasons as to why they are they are the only people we should really listen to.
2. Political signalling; we should have a system that is more able to deal with nuance and reward people for doing things that voters want.
3; Political compromise; If the game is non-zero sum there are vastly more opportunities to come to sane, net benefit policies
4; Better governance; Good governance is wholly related to winning elections in the current system. This seems like a bad method for governance...When political signalling has more depth, and compromise enabled you will naturally get better governance. (or at least less cases of bad governance)
5; Continuity of policy; if policy changes are made on a continuum consensus rather than drastic sea changes, you generate less uncertainty, which is good for markets.
6; Lower potential for corruption; If people have more political options, the costs of not internally policing corruption are higher.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#398 Dec 09 2016 at 1:45 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
I already listed the goals. Explicitly here are some of the more important benefits, HE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN T
1. Enfranchisement: We want to persuade as many other countries as possiblr to pay to run their states as US franchises.
2. Political signalling; We want to signal to teh world that Taiwan is number one.
3; Political compromise; We want to do away with political compromise, as it makes us look weak.
4; Better governance; The old governance sucked. End of story.
5; Continuity of policy; Our reich will last a thousand years, putting an end to the violent seesaw between extremes we see under the present system. Our stability will ensure the markets never have reason to worry.
6; Lower potential for corruption; If anyone does anything corrupt I'll see to them personally. Freed from the need to prove guilt I will be able to put away all those corrupt SOBs that we all know are doing it.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#399 Dec 09 2016 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
It's not like you can just "deny voting' and be taken at your word. There ARE ways to verify that.

You don't believe that one study was legitimately debunked; that's fine, I can't make you believe it. But surely you must have more sources than that one?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#400 Dec 09 2016 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My issue is that so far the arguments for popular vote are pretty circular. It's basically "we should use a direct popular vote because a direct popular vote is better".

Not remotely. At its most basic, the argument would be "a popular vote gives an equal democratic voice to all voters". It goes deeper than that but if you can't even grasp THAT much after two threads of however many pages each, any deeper argument is wasted on you.
Quote:
And not just "because then each person's vote counts the same" because that's still circular (that's inherent to the very thing you're arguing for). As I've said repeatedly, the differences between direct nationwide popular vote and the EC system is effectively the difference between choosing to have a Democracy or a Republic.

You apparently have no clue what a Republic is if you think unequal representation is intrinsic to the definition or that merely selecting the chief executive via democratic means discounts the republican system of the federal, state and local legislatures. A republic is basically any representative system where the citizenry choose others to work the government on their behalf. Whether those representatives are selected via direct means or through more byzantine processes isn't especially important. Directly voting for president wouldn't make us a direct democracy, deciding every law via ballot initiative would make us a direct democracy.

That said, "Oh no! Poli-Sci majors would call us a democracy and not a republic?!?!" is hardly something that keeps most people up at night. I guess you can try and scare people with the idea that, instead of a Democratic Republic, we'd be a very slightly different form of Democratic Republic.

Edited, Dec 9th 2016 8:33am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#401 Dec 09 2016 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,900 posts
Samira wrote:
But surely you must have more sources than that one?
The fact there aren't more sources is proof that there's a giant liberal conspiracy cover up of the voter fraud.

And don't call me Shirley.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (56)