|
The US voting system de-facto forces people to vote for a candidate they don't loving like, because the alternative is a candidate that they full on loving hate. Voting for a 3rd party is an excellent way to demonstrate the spoiler effect and help elect the candidate you hate. First past the post/winner take all elections are loving dumb but we're pretty stuck with them. Until that changes (it won't), you get two realistic choices and a collection of one to four other totally unrealistic choices that don't actually matter (in major elections that actually matter).
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is mandatory voting truly shown to get better results than participatory voting? A bunch of people have already answered you but basically any solution is almost certainly going to require legislation at the national level so for starters vote enough so that the House flips and then pressure the gently caress out of your Senator/Representative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
The real elephant in the room seems to be that the answer to the question at the beginning of the segment "Are these candidates REALLY the best we can do?" might actually be "yes".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:You and people like you keep trying to guilt people unto voting for a person and a party they don't loving like. Your indignation is unearned and you are convincing nobody. If hillary fails to trump of all people, its because shes a garbage candidate. If she gets blocked like gore in 2000 by third party votes, thats on every idiot democrat from the lowly voter that frankly had no real say in Clinton's coronation all the way to her top donors and senior dnc staff that did everything they could to install her. Leftists dont owe you or any other centrist their unwavering support for candidates with a storied history of undermining and working against true leftist ideals. Trump's a garbage fire. Clinton's a garbage fire, you do yourself no favors by demanding anybody play ball by feeding the fire. What makes Clinton a garbage fire? I'd love to see some evidence of this storied history of undermining and working against true leftest ideals from the person running under the leftmost democratic party platform yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Get rid of the electoral college and let everyones vote count as one vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:Get rid of the electoral college and let everyones vote count as one vote. This would not help at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Strobe posted:This would not help at all. I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
This is a very good video that is informative and interesting, please watch it to learn how you're wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Hint: The problem is that one-person-one-vote and most-votes-wins will always result in two major parties. Always. Forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
It's called Duverger's Law in political science, it is pretty hard to get around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_lawMikeJF posted:The senate's weird, though, and a bunch of the nutjobs come from the idea of above-the-line voting rather than the concept of the preferential system. If you're going to improve the voting system, then moving to something that is actually proportional would be the only reasonable choice, since one electoral system change per generation would be all most people would want, why go to a system with so many well documented flaws?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
I respect your right to disagree. State watching and winning and arbitrarily breaking up regions leads to apathy and a lack of incentive to vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:If you're going to improve the voting system, then moving to something that is actually proportional would be the only reasonable choice, since one electoral system change per generation would be all most people would want, why go to a system with so many well documented flaws? Strobe posted:You don't have to figure out the perfect solution in order to change things for the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Serious question, why would people be against having the third party candidate in the main debates? Like a "top 4" parties rule or something. You could say "because they aren't polling high" but that could be due to the lack of media coverage.hemophilia posted:You and people like you keep trying to guilt people unto voting for a person and a party they don't loving like. Your indignation is unearned and you are convincing nobody. If hillary fails to trump of all people, its because shes a garbage candidate. If she gets blocked like gore in 2000 by third party votes, thats on every idiot democrat from the lowly voter that frankly had no real say in Clinton's coronation all the way to her top donors and senior dnc staff that did everything they could to install her. Leftists dont owe you or any other centrist their unwavering support for candidates with a storied history of undermining and working against true leftist ideals. Trump's a garbage fire. Clinton's a garbage fire, you do yourself no favors by demanding anybody play ball by feeding the fire. I hate to be "that guy" but I feel that the truth is somewhere in the middle. On one hand, it is ridiculous to scream at people for voting with their conscious as it is the political parties job to make voters want to vote for them and not the other way around. I will also agree that there seems to be A LOT of cock sucking of the Democratic Party, as anything that paints the party [strike]negative[/strike] not in a 100% positive light is immediately dismissed as either tinfoil conspiracy or "holier than thou" idiocy. I find it ridiculous that someone can't be angry at the Clinton's "tough on crime laws" as well as Bill's ridiculous defense against it during the BLM protest, Hillary's support of the Iraq war, or how the Democrats still seem way too comfortable with the financial elite. It would be fine if these people respectively disagreed with others, but instead they act extremely smug by dismissing them as "kids" or "naive when it comes to politics." What makes this annoying is that the Democrats have a laughable track record in actually increasing their political power. Despite all of Trump's blunders, the Democrats will not take the House (like many establishment types predicted during the primaries) and possibly not even the senate (which most said was guaranteed). The only thing more annoying than a smug bastard who is "always right" is a smug bastard who is "always wrong". That first segment from The Newsroom constantly plays in my head when talking about this. On the other hand, there is a VERY real hatred of Hillary and the Democrats that range from being exaggerated to just flatout moronic. It would be okay if Stein voters were saying "I prefer voting for Stein instead of Hillary Clinton because I merely like Stein's policies better and I always vote with my conscious." And to be fair, that is what many are saying. The problem is that a fair share of them are also saying "I will be voting for Stein because Hillary is a crook who belongs and jail and is just as bad as Donald Trump." A share of the left paints Hillary as much in a negative light as the Republicans have as they see her as a Wall Street candidate in sheep skin who vows to serve the wealthy and bomb everyone everywhere. While, Hillary and friends do have a history of being hawkish and have questionable donors, they are hardly the "neocons" that many paint them to be. On top of that, while "voting for your conscience" is fine, so is "voting strategically". At the end of the day, we do have FPTP, and while Hillary isn't perfect, she is FAR superior to Trump or any other Republican for that matter. People can argue about whether or not electing Hillary will pull America to the left, but few (sane) people would argue that it would pull the country significantly to the right. What's ironic is that Hillary is easily one of the most left wing people in the Democratic Party, sure she is no Bernie Sanders, but she is no Ben Nelson neither, or even Tim Kaine. While the "93% of the issues" with Bernie is very misleading, it does paint a general portrait of where she leans compared to the rest of the party. Therefore "Hillary is just as bad as Trump" comes off as stereotypical "looney left" talk. Strobe posted:The US voting system de-facto forces people to vote for a candidate they don't loving like, because the alternative is a candidate that they full on loving hate. Voting for a 3rd party is an excellent way to demonstrate the spoiler effect and help elect the candidate you hate. Can someone tell me why third party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson aren't screaming for referendums for runoff voting off the top of their lungs? Are they that stupid? Ur Getting Fatter posted:A bunch of people have already answered you but basically any solution is almost certainly going to require legislation at the national level so for starters vote enough so that the House flips and then pressure the gently caress out of your Senator/Representative. Thank you. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:I respect your right to disagree. State watching and winning and arbitrarily breaking up regions leads to apathy and a lack of incentive to vote. That's certainly part of it, gerrymandering even in the abstract like that is still something that's a problem. But it's far and away not the only one, or even the biggest one! First past the post is demonstrably and empirically jacks up voter apathy through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Can someone tell me why third party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson aren't screaming for referendums for runoff voting off the top of their lungs? Are they that stupid? Because then if they somehow, improbably, impossibly actually win then they become the next <whichever party failed hardest> major party. They have just as much of a vested interest in keeping the system as is as any other candidate, their payoff is just on astronomically longer odds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Serious question, why would people be against having the third party candidate in the main debates? Like a "top 4" parties rule or something. You could say "because they aren't polling high" but that could be due to the lack of media coverage. As far as I know, third party candidates CAN be in the main debates, but there is a minimum polling threshold (which isn't unreasonably high - I think it's something like 5-10%?) to really be considered a "serious" candidate. The lack of media coverage certainly hurts third party candidates' ability to reach that threshold, but the media is a private entity and makes its choices based on what's popular. The "two candidates enter, one candidate leaves" format is just easier to sell than "politics is a complicated spectrum of ideas".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Stein "has issues," like policy positions and general opinions on a wide variety of issues with absolutely no bearing on reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I am against having these third parties in the main debates, as it legitimizes two insane parties. The exception would be if the Libertarian who stripped to a g-string and danced at their debates is the one they invite. He's always welcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:If you're going to improve the voting system, then moving to something that is actually proportional would be the only reasonable choice, since one electoral system change per generation would be all most people would want, why go to a system with so many well documented flaws? Which flaws? Australia's flaws aren't really because of IRV. And one of the benefits is that switching to IRV doesn't require a change in governmental system, it's just a change in the way the vote count happens, relatively easy to implement, with dramatic and immediate benefits. Actually changing to something proportional would be orders of magnitude more dramatic and less doable. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Most businesses wouldn't give a poo poo about election day being a hospital. No restaurant I've ever worked for would close for the day. Because election day is a hospital!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Which flaws? Australia's flaws aren't really because of IRV. And one of the benefits is that switching to IRV doesn't require a change in governmental system, it's just a change in the way the vote count happens, relatively easy to implement, with dramatic and immediate benefits. Actually changing to something proportional would be orders of magnitude more dramatic and less doable. IRV pretty much ensures that the current two party system remains dominant, while offering the appearance of a more proportional system that would actually enable those smaller parties to win. Coming from a country that did move to a proportional system; it's not actually any more difficult than what you're describing, since the only real obstacle here is public education. Also this whole thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How-to-vote_card Pararoid fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
I sincerely feel for anybody who lives in a loving garbage reformation state. I live in California. But wouldn't mandatory availability of absentee voting without needing a reason be the best way to dial with all polling issues? They count absentee ballots. They are totaled after the polling place elections. Still, none of this fights the real problem with voter turnout, that having been stated as APATHY. I feel safe in saying:  California will go to Hillary in the general election, no matter how I, Solvent, vote.This is why I'm apathetic, I cant even write in Sanders. I'm also still considering voting for Stein despite her terrible musical past. For future funding for the Green party, as a conscience vote against Clinton, who I don't like, and because Stein, to the best of my knowledge still has a warrant for her participation in the protests at Standing Rock. This should have been an even bigger deal than it was. Not only should there be more respect for Native reservation sovereignty, but that loving pipeline threatens aquifers, and thrashes graves with no respect of NAGPRA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:IRV pretty much ensures that the current two party system remains dominant, while offering the appearance of a more proportional system that would actually enable those smaller parties to win. Coming from a country that did move to a proportional system; it's not actually any more difficult than what you're describing, since the only real obstacle here is public education. IRV encourages third parties a lot more than FPTP since it allows third parties to build up support and momentum through the primary vote over time and multiple elections without spoiling their entire wing of politics and sending it into a tailspin. The minor parties in Oz like the Greens wouldn't have reached the stage where they now have House of Reps seats without being able to do that. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Guys, Hillary isn't the perfect liberal candidate. Therefore, we should sabotage the election to help elect literal fascist Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Guys, Hillary isn't the perfect liberal candidate. Therefore, we should sabotage the election to help elect literal fascist Donald Trump. Literally nobody is saying that currently.People are actually talking about the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
What's notable is that the presidential election literally is the one in which every individual's vote is worth the least, since it's being weighed against everybody else in the country (or at least everybody else in the state, the result of which will be weighed against the rest of the country). That's why local elections are important to keep track of and vote in, because it's literally where every individual's vote matters more proportionally, as well as being about issues that are more imminently important to the electorate personally. It's interesting how all these people arguing for mandatory voting are comparing the American system to the Australian, a parliamentary one, where there aren't any nationally elected positions like president. It's all regional elections and the parliament just choose one of their own to be prime minister and eat onions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:I disagree. Using popular vote over the electoral college as a rubric sounds good until you think about it a little more...you can disagree all you like until you see the 'losing' party request a recall... ...in all fifty states. At the same time. Multiple times if the first recount doesn't come out their way. Using popular vote would also be one hell of an incentive to *actually* stir voter fraud. Similarly, I'm really worried about 'things happening' on election day - a 'scary but no one was hurt' car bomb at a few polling places in key sections of a battleground state, or electrical grid hacking, to say nothing of loving around with electronic voting machines. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Using popular vote would also be one hell of an incentive to *actually* stir voter fraud. This doesn't make sense as this would just be as effective under our current system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:As far as I know, third party candidates CAN be in the main debates, but there is a minimum polling threshold (which isn't unreasonably high - I think it's something like 5-10%?) to really be considered a "serious" candidate. Yeah, basically it is to keep from having to entertain every fringe weirdo who comes along. So you don't end up with something like the early Republican debates with like 10 people on stage at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
gently caress representational voting it doesn't help minorities. Every loving honkey rear end cracker in the world whines about how government doesn't represent them while you step on those with darker skin than you. That's 100% the reason I'll take first to pass the post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Veskit posted:gently caress representational voting it doesn't help minorities. Every loving honkey rear end cracker in the world whines about how government doesn't represent them while you step on those with darker skin than you. That's 100% the reason I'll take first to pass the post. You made it too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:You made it too obvious. It's veskit so I think it's probably sincere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
IRQ posted:It's veskit so I think it's probably sincere. Honkey rear end cracker was overdoing it sure but I'm otherwise right and sincere 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Yeah though representational voting is great if you genuinely believe that all votes are equal and that the protected classes of society don't exist. IE, it works well for Australia. Basically gently caress Boongas right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Serious question. What are boongas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
A misspelling of bogans?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
IRQ posted:A misspelling of bogans? Or bongos
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Boongs boongas whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
I still refuse to believe that Veskit is legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I still refuse to believe that Veskit is legitimate. Oh you haven't seen anything yet. Veskit posted:Boongs boongas whatever Oh ok, googling tells me this is a racial slur for aboriginal australians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
IRQ posted:Oh you haven't seen anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:43
|
|