Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#352 Nov 30 2016 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,156 posts
Pretty much. I think I gave up on it after a while and moseyed off to Fark and other sites. I thought they'd decided to close the forums down, honestly.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#353 Nov 30 2016 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
******
49,305 posts
Samira wrote:
I thought they'd decided to close the forums down, honestly.
Euthanasia would probably be more humane.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#354 Nov 30 2016 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,201 posts
Someone probably has $10 riding on how long we can hold out here. Wouldn't want to miss out on a free lunch just to be "humane" to random internet people.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#355 Dec 01 2016 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Their system is literally just the electoral college using districts in the same way the country uses states...


Except that it's a lot easier to gerrymander district boundaries than states. My point was in response to a post talking about the issue of gerrymandering affecting how EC votes are won or lost, so that does seem relevant.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Dec 01 2016 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was playing on the comparison to high population versus low population density areas in the country.
You were arbitrarily assigning higher value to the lower population's contribution and devaluing the contributions of the higher population using an emotional and ultimately irrelevant factor to the already shaky analogy.


It's not arbitrary to observe that groups of people from different geographical regions will have different contributions to and different needs from the whole. The EC exists as a means to balance out the needs of the nation based on geography and the needs of the nation based on population. Tossing it out because it "devalues" the contributions and needs of the most densely populated regions misses that point entirely. All you're doing is stating the effect that the EC has without actually analyzing whether there are legitimate reasons for it to have that effect.

Yes. Obviously, in an purely objective measure, the EC devalues the votes of those in high population regions relative to those in low population regions. That's by design. Now tell me why that's a bad thing. While still showing that you have some grasp of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Elections are won by those who show up.
Elections are won by strategically placed invisible lines that let people pretend they're unique snowflakes.


Except those lines were placed prior to the election with all participants knowing about them, knowing the rules, and knowing the victory conditions. The lines didn't determine who won. They are the rules that everyone follows. In the case of the EC, those rules require that one appeal to more than just the highest population regions by weighting a bit towards the less dense regions. So the correct response is to try to make your platform and candidate appeal to voters in those regions and not to just complain that it's unfair after the fact.

if only I'd been able to move my rook like a bishop, I would have won that game of chess. Right? That's what this looks like to me.

Jophiel wrote:
When you're a conservative, civil rights is always something silly like wanting a pony or ice cream or whatever.


When people claim their rights are being infringed if their welfare benefits are threatened, it's kinda hard not to make that comparison. Maybe you should go become a champion among the Left, teaching everyone how welfare is not a right, and free education is not a right, and free healthcare is not a right. Until you do that, I'm going to feel quite comfortable comparing anything you clam to be a right to a demand for a free pony.

Edited, Dec 1st 2016 2:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Dec 01 2016 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
When people claim their rights are being infringed if their welfare benefits are threatened, it's kinda hard not to make that comparison

It is, in fact, tremendously easy to not compare civil rights to wanting a pony. Like, incredibly simple.

Of course you'll feel comfortable doing it. That's pretty much part and parcel of who you are as a person.

Edited, Dec 1st 2016 5:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#358 Dec 01 2016 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
When people claim their rights are being infringed if their welfare benefits are threatened, it's kinda hard not to make that comparison

It is, in fact, tremendously easy to not compare civil rights to wanting a pony. Like, incredibly simple.


It's also tremendously easy to not call something an absence or violation of a "civil right", when it's not. Yet, that's what you liberals do constantly. You're the one comparing a civil right to wanting a pony, not me. I was talking about the demand for something you never had, under the argument that the absence of such was disenfranchisement, and pointing out that you could make the same argument for *anything*, including something as absurd as having a free pony.

The more relevant question here is whether you truly believe that the very system of voting in a Republic is an inherent violation of the people's civil rights. Because that's the only way you can label that as a "civil right", and thus claim it's being denied (and thus make the comparison to wanting a pony).

Quote:
Of course you'll feel comfortable doing it. That's pretty much part and parcel of who you are as a person.


Which is strange, given that you're the one who brought up the whole "civil right" thing. Maybe you first need to establish the claim that voting for a representative rather than directly violates a civil right first? Just a thought. Otherwise, you're just, once again, tossing out an absurd straw man claim.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Dec 01 2016 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Tossing it out because it "devalues" the contributions and needs of the most densely populated regions misses that point entirely. voters


I think that is what you meant to say
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#360 Dec 01 2016 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're the one comparing a civil right to wanting a pony, not me.

Smiley: laugh
Whatever makes you feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#361 Dec 02 2016 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,305 posts
gbaji wrote:
Now tell me why that's a bad thing.
Now? Smiley: laugh
gbaji wrote:
The lines didn't determine who won.
Except they did.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#362 Dec 02 2016 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except those lines were placed prior to the election with all participants knowing about them, knowing the rules, and knowing the victory conditions. The lines didn't determine who won. They are the rules that everyone follows.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing this or claiming that the results are illegitimate. People are simply stating that the results of the election versus the vote totals reflect a disconnect within the system and there's valid reasons to think that should be addressed. If the system isn't working well, you change it.

You can argue that you think it does work well; you can't trivialize the other reasons with "Well, those were the rules" when no one is claiming otherwise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#363 Dec 04 2016 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
jophiel wrote:
You can argue that you think it does work well; you can't trivialize the other reasons with "Well, those were the rules" when no one is claiming otherwise.
For some reason, I don't think these same people would say "those are the rules" if the EC voted in Clinton on 19 DEC. I would guess it would be a total flip on both sides.
#364 Dec 04 2016 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,181 posts
Almalieque wrote:
jophiel wrote:
You can argue that you think it does work well; you can't trivialize the other reasons with "Well, those were the rules" when no one is claiming otherwise.
For some reason, I don't think these same people would say "those are the rules" if the EC voted in Clinton on 19 DEC. I would guess it would be a total flip on both sides.


No, regardless of the outcome, it's a whack system.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#365 Dec 04 2016 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I would guess it would be a total flip on both sides.

Nah. It would be a deus ex machina save for Clinton in 2016 but she would still be better served by a popular vote (based purely off the 2016 numbers) in 2020. It's not as though you want the system where you have to rely on the EC going rogue against the state totals.

Edited, Dec 4th 2016 7:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#366 Dec 05 2016 at 5:56 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
If you think about it, if the EC does vote for Clinton, it would be doing exactly what it should be doing, protecting the people from the people. That's a statement loaded with bias, but from an objective point of view, it's easy to point out his lack of experience and personality as not a good choice for the nation.
#367 Dec 05 2016 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,305 posts
Jophiel wrote:
you can't trivialize the other reasons with "Well, those were the rules" when no one is claiming otherwise.
Oh like that's anything new.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#368 Dec 05 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If you think about it, if the EC does vote for Clinton, it would be doing exactly what it should be doing, protecting the people from the people. That's a statement loaded with bias, but from an objective point of view, it's easy to point out his lack of experience and personality as not a good choice for the nation.

Sure, but your comment about everyone flipping sides assumes a purely partisan motive. From a completely pragmatic point of view, Clinton (or Democrats, likely) would be best served in the long term by a popular vote so even if the EC was to flip the results, you couldn't rely on that in future cycles.

Of course, you get to have your cake and eat it too in that scenario: all your arguments for a popular vote still hold PLUS you get your desired outcome this cycle. On the other hand, Trump supporters/Republicans get nothing out of it but they wouldn't be served by a popular vote either (which Trump would have handily lost as well).

If the EC handed the presidency to Clinton (they won't, of course) the attitudes towards the Electoral College on a partisan level would be unchanged on the Clinton side and "enforce EC votes/punish faithless electors" on the Trump side.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#369 Dec 05 2016 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,305 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(which Trump would have handily lost as well).
No, those millions of votes were all illegal. Trump won the popular vote as well. We have proof of this because Trump said so.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#370 Dec 05 2016 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,156 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
(which Trump would have handily lost as well).
No, those millions of votes were all illegal. Trump won the popular vote as well. We have proof of this because Trump said so.


Now, now, be reasonable. You're acting as though he's supposed to be factually true in his statements, when he's really only sharing his feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#371 Dec 05 2016 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
PROOF? Who needs proof? Not these folks.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#372 Dec 06 2016 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,305 posts
Facebook is all the verification we need.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#373 Dec 06 2016 at 1:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,201 posts
I think you have to be realistic and assume many people never leave facebook, so anything that happened or didn't happen outside of facebook doesn't matter. I mean the reality of voter fraud isn't as important as the fact that your second cousin got 3 more likes for linking it than you did, even though you linked it first and you share most of the same friends. I mean when everyone is obviously out to get you like that what are you supposed to do?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#374 Dec 06 2016 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except those lines were placed prior to the election with all participants knowing about them, knowing the rules, and knowing the victory conditions. The lines didn't determine who won. They are the rules that everyone follows.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing this or claiming that the results are illegitimate.


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?).

Quote:
People are simply stating that the results of the election versus the vote totals reflect a disconnect within the system and there's valid reasons to think that should be addressed. If the system isn't working well, you change it.


The counter is that the Democrats pursuing a high popular vote tally rather than the EC vote tally is the disconnect. 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.

The World Series isn't won by the team that scored the most points over a 7 game series Joph. It's won by the team that wins the most games, no matter how narrowly or widely. Smart teams therefore allocate their players over the series as a whole with an eye towards that goal. Dumb teams focus their efforts on running up the score in individual games, thus perhaps not having enough fresh/strong players for remaining games.

Losing the series because of poor player allocation and then complaining because in the 3 games you did win, you won by blowouts and thus scored more points, is equally dumb. Yet, that's essentially what's going on right now.

Quote:
You can argue that you think it does work well; you can't trivialize the other reasons with "Well, those were the rules" when no one is claiming otherwise.


I'm not trivializing though. I'm the only person who has actually spent time writing an analysis (several in fact) of how any of a set of proposed alternatives might change things and whether those changes are positive on net. I happen to think that simply repeating "but if we do a popular vote it'll be better!" over and over is trivializing the entire issue. You're just starting with your conclusion and repeating it when you do that (not speaking of you specifically, but a broad "you" to those who keep arguing for popular vote over EC). That's not a valid argument.

Yes. We could elect the president via direct popular vote. That's not the question. The question is: Should we? Would it actually be better? Heck. What do you think is "better" in this context? Why? What are we trying to accomplish and does a direct vote accomplish that? And what other changes might occur as a result of that change that you might not have thought through?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#375 Dec 06 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
(which Trump would have handily lost as well).
No, those millions of votes were all illegal. Trump won the popular vote as well. We have proof of this because Trump said so.


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.

There are also a number of other studies that have estimated that somewhere between 13% and 25% of illegal immigrants are registered to vote. That doesn't mean that they actually do vote, but it's still a problem. And that's honestly just the tip of the iceberg. There are some absurd protections for illegal immigrants in this country that most people would be surprised about. We knowingly allow them to attend public universities. We knowingly grant them driver's licenses (because, apparently, it would be a violation of their rights not to allow them to drive). Seriously, here in hippy-dippy land, we actually passed a law that creates a special driver's licenses for people who cannot prove that they are in the country legally (AB-60). It literally exists solely for the purpose of allowing illegal immigrants to get a license. Ironically, despite it having a special identification clearly indicating that it is this form of license (and apparently can't be used for ID purposes, but I'm reasonably certain that it is anyway), it's also illegal to use it as a means of determining that someone is here illegally, nor can someone showing this license be reported to ICE. That's... insane. Apparently, over half a million such licenses were granted in the first year of the program alone.

Of course, we also have a law that automatically registers anyone with a license to vote. Ironically, one can argue that this makes things less likely to result in illegals voting, since the special AB-60 licenses don't trigger a registration process. Previously, an illegal could just use false documentation to get a license, and be automatically registered. So I suppose this might be a case of two bad ideas almost cancelling each other out. Of course, that does not at all prevent an illegal from simply filling out a registration form (like say from any random person asking for signatures for a petition), and being put on the roles. And in California, we have no state wide tracking system for voter registration. It's all done in a haphazard manner. So there's massive potential for abuse and fraud, especially among a population that already exists by means of false IDs. Despite perception to the contrary, most illegals aren't camping out somewhere doing under the table day labor. Most of them have false identities and use legitimate SSNs with those false IDs (which is never checked by the SS administration, nor the IRS, much less reported to ICE when the quite obvious symptom of two people with different names using the same number crops up). They use the false IDs to get employment and housing. Which in turn is used to get bank accounts. Which in turn makes it nearly impossible to tell that they aren't citizens.

Illegal immigrants don't get fake IDs that identify them as legal immigrants. They get fake IDs that identify them as citizens. It's kinda foolish to assume that they might not take that a step further and register to vote (cause no one checks), and then actually vote (because, again, no one checks). Not only does no one check, but we go out of our way to look the other direction and make absolutely sure that the illegals know that we're doing so. Not because we want them to vote, of course. That would be illegal. Just to make sure they don't feel like they're in danger. You know. In case they accidentally register to vote, and then accidentally fill out a ballot, perhaps not even knowing they aren't supposed to, right? It would be totally wrong of us to punish them for such a thing.

Is the number 3 million? Probably not. I would not at all be surprised if the number was in excess of 1 million though, and only mildly so if it were more like 2 million. There are just too many states with too many illegal immigrants with more or less zero means to prevent it to think it's not happening. Couple that with get out the vote language that seems to be specially tailored to encourage everyone to vote (and with repeated points about how important it is for illegals for the votes to go a certain way, but you know, not for the illegals to actually vote, just other Spanish speaking people to do so on their behalf. nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...). It really is amusing to listen to the advertisements on this, and how they tap dance around the language to not actually say "we need as many illegals to vote as possible", while really pretty obviously saying "if you're illegal, you need to vote, or dire things will happen to you, your family, your friends, etc). There's a whole lot of "saying this, but clearly meaning that" going on in this area.

While Trump's claims may be a bit overblown, it's not the insignificant thing that so many people dismiss it as. We don't know how big a problem it is because, as per usual, the Democrats block any effort to even investigate the issue. The excuse is that they don't want to risk disenfranchising even a single legal citizen, but the result is that we can't even look to see if our registration roles are accurate. Actually, scratch that, we know they are inaccurate, but no one is allowed to go through and fix the inaccuracies. Everyone just "looks the other way", while whistling innocently. And the means they use to detect voter fraud apparently consists of "did any voters complain about fraud". Um... It's not like the folks voting illegally are wearing signs saying so, and no one's going to report themselves, so how is that a useful methodology?

It's not. The reality is that we have no clue how many people are voting illegally, especially here in California. And maybe that's the real problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#376 Dec 06 2016 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.

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.

Quote:
I'm not trivializing though

Said the guy comparing the presidency to baseball...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#377 Dec 06 2016 at 9:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 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
******
20,866 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
******
34,756 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
****
9,164 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".
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#381 Dec 06 2016 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,866 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
*****
13,181 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
***
1,033 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
*****
13,181 posts
從1到10多少白酒
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#386 Dec 07 2016 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
***
1,033 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
******
29,156 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
******
49,305 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
***
3,037 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
******
20,866 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
***
3,037 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
******
34,756 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
******
34,756 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
******
34,756 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
*****
13,181 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
*****
13,181 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
***
1,033 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
******
29,156 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
******
49,305 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 CDT
Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (55)