|
rapeface posted:How does How to Vote cards side-step what mechanism? IDGI dude. You mean that major parties can tell their supporters to vote in a way that helps them, but is against their own interests, like when Labor cards told their voters to put Liberal ahead of Greens? The point is that when voters just follow how-to-vote guides, they sidestep the benefits of IRV by not actually ranking the candidates, which results in what is basically first past the post with token representation for minor parties. quote:MMP has some advantages over IRV, but doesn't it result only have one house? Getting the US to accept that sounds a lot tougher than the already herculean task of weaning them off FPTP. I think your characterization of STV/IRV as only slightly better than FPTP a bit unfair. This seems like a fair point, which is why I only discussed MMP when it was brought up by others, even though I am a strong advocate of it here in New Zealand. Realistically I think the US would want to develop it's own proportional system if it was so inclined, but there are valuable lessons to be learned from countries who have implemented systems that have the appearance of proportionally, but few of the benefits.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Even as a strong advocate of IRV/STV/*, having to "number all the boxes" is a pain in the rear end and sure way to drive people to copy off a list. We use Choice Voting in San Francisco for a number of local offices and hosed if I know enough about who's running for Assessor-Recorder to make an informed decision about ranking my votes. (in reality that race is probably uncontested but you get me though, right?) On the other hand, the ballots limit a maximum of three ranked choices (in a very paper-wasteful sort of way); for a Mayor's election I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to make ten weird ranked votes. I'm sure there's some mathematical / ethical considerations weighing here, but I feel a decent system would allow you to rank as many candidates as you please with the understanding that your vote is wasted if they ALL get knocked out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
It's only really a pain when there's a lot of candidates. Australia alleviated this for voting for the Senate where instead of having to rank 100 odd people, you could just rank a minimum of 6 parties. For the House of Reps you did have to rank all of the candidates, but generally you'd know the major ones you liked and then just vaguely ranked the rest depending on how evil they were (and there were only 5-10 options to rank anyway).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
I'll add a scenario where Bernie, Hillary and MLK2.0 run. You could vote 1 MLK2.0 and 2 Hillary and skip Bernie completely. Say there's also a non-crazy fiscal conservative black policy guy who, in today's system and climate, can't become the Republican candidate. You could vote 1 MLK2.0, 2 BlackConservative, 3 Hillary if you wanted without fear of wasting your vote. Or 1 BlackConservative, 2 MLK2.0, 3 Hillary. Pararoid posted:The point is that when voters just follow how-to-vote guides, they sidestep the benefits of IRV by not actually ranking the candidates, which results in what is basically first past the post with token representation for minor parties. I don't agree with this. if you follow a how-to-vote card, you're essentially using your vote as effectively as possible if you trust your parties' back room dealings. Some people aren't engaged enough or simply don't have the time to do their research about which of the million minor parties deceptively named parties they should vote for. You still get the benefits of reducing the spoiler effect. If you're saying it's not as good as some other systems at empowering individual voters, I won't challenge you on that point. Uninformed voters are always going to be susceptible to marketing and advertising though. Pararoid posted:This seems like a fair point, which is why I only discussed MMP when it was brought up by others, even though I am a strong advocate of it here in New Zealand. Realistically I think the US would want to develop it's own proportional system if it was so inclined, but there are valuable lessons to be learned from countries who have implemented systems that have the appearance of proportionally, but few of the benefits. The thing that I dislike about MMP is that party leadership are an official part of the voting process, and that the spoiler effect still occurs if we're just talking about local representatives. In cases where you like a local unpopular candidate, but dislike the party, you've got a difficult choice to make. Imagine a progressive local low-ranking member of the Conservative Party. If I want to vote for him, but not for the Conservative Party, I risk having my local vote wasted under MMP (as I understand it anyway). The opposite case is also true, where there can be a candidate I hate for a Party I like. STV lets me order the candidates as I see fit, even interlacing them if I want. It also makes it harder for independents to run. Both have flaws. My Math PhD friend keeps telling me about the Schulze vote method, but I tuned him out.  Edit: Didn't even realise CGP Grey had a video on MMP vs STV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNtsjB7L_I crepeface fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
I like STV because it lets us keep local reps, which I feel is very important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
rapeface posted:What are you talking about? These voting methods make the distribution of seats in government closer to the distribution of the electorate. It arguably increases the impact of small parties and punishes major parties for diluting their positions. When Australia's Labor Party moved to the right, they were punished by having many of their voters go Greens, which has adopted a lot more social justice policies. You could actually vote for someone that has better policies for black people rather than having to go with the guy with the least bad policies for blacks without that vote being wasted. The whole point is, if your stronger black candidate doesn't have enough votes to get elected, your next best choice then gets your vote. This assumption assumes we get less from Clinton now than we would from 10% representation of a candidate we want, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just drunk and tired at an airport but I have no idea how to even parse your statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
rapeface posted:Maybe I'm just drunk and tired at an airport but I have no idea how to even parse your statement. I'll go slow for you since your brain is full of retard. In a representational system, when your party receives 10% of the vote, do you have 10% of the power in a parliament?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Okay, preferential voting sounds real nice. I'll give you that. I don't know enough about Australia's political environment to know how well that's working out for them, though. They have some kind onion-based system, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Okay, preferential voting sounds real nice. I'll give you that. Australia's political problems are more based around the parties having all dissolved into bullshit and internal clusterfuckery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
rude. Your assertion that FPTP is better than other voting systems because 10% population (Black people) could possibly assert more influence in electing the governing party? If so, that's equally countered by minorty segments that you may oppose exerting the same influence. Like crazy racists, or religious nuts. Even if that wasn't the case and that Black people was the only such group to exert influence greater than their proportion, all they get is the power to help elect a party that has no incentive to have policies that are beneficial to them other than a cursory nod. It's not like Black People are going to vote Republican. You essentially have no choice. This isn't even getting into the fact that not all Black people have the same priorities and issues and shouldn't be appealed to as some sort of homogeneous mass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Okay, preferential voting sounds real nice. I'll give you that. Australia's political environment is a reflection of how stupid we are. And also the fact one guy owns most of our media and news probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
rapeface posted:Your assertion that FPTP is better than other voting systems because 10% population (Black people) could possibly assert more influence in electing the governing party? If so, that's equally countered by minorty segments that you may oppose exerting the same influence. Like crazy racists, or religious nuts. Those purged black voters were something like 22 times the number of votes Bush won by. What's your loving point except that minorities can and should be ignored because there are not as many of them as white people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
rapeface posted:Even if that wasn't the case and that Black people was the only such group to exert influence greater than their proportion, all they get is the power to help elect a party that has no incentive to have policies that are beneficial to them other than a cursory nod. It's not like Black People are going to vote Republican. You're dumber than today is friday. I'm sure it's wildly coincidental that black people voting democrat changed drastically in both 1964 and 2008.  I bet it was some cursory nods to the community  Also yeah you could also argue that when 93% of a community votes the ame way that you could consider them having very similar priorities. loving stop arguing just to argue and make a real case Also again, black people get promises from the primaries more so than they get from the general. You can't win a primary without the black vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
goddamn you are crabby about to take off. Try and stretch your brain and understand a new idea okay. I even included a comic and video
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Also again, black people get promises from the primaries more so than they get from the general. You can't win a primary without the black vote. How are those "promises" working out for you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Stop biting Jesus gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Stop biting Jesus gently caress. Sorry, you're right. I'll rephrase it as a statement. Veskit those empty promises aren't getting you anywhere and maybe you should try looking into a third party or putting pressure on the democrats to stop being just a watered down version of the republicans i.e. complete and utter whores to corporations and the rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:How are those "promises" working out for you? Pretty well purchasing power is rising http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/02...-create-wealth/ Black people receiving degrees is massively on the rise  Black populations are growing faster than other races which is great  Are there areas to improve on? I mean yeah, the three biggest areas happen to be clintons three biggest policy changes which are access to healthcare, participation in the labor force with higher paying jobs, and justice but gently caress off at the end of teh day because YES THE PAST 10 YEARS ARE WORKING FOR BLACK PEOPLE. What is getting worse? Seriously answer that and stop baiting like a loving dick. rear end in a top hat Veskit fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Pretty well purchasing power is rising You're whole gimmick is baiting people though? Nice to see you so easily devolve to childish name calling. Classy. Most degrees are pretty worthless now and just put people into massive debt, the gap between rich and poor is only getting bigger and the only reason people in power see population growth as a good sign is there are more people to tax and screw. Let's all go back to talking about John Oliver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:You're whole gimmick is baiting people though? Nice to see you so easily devolve to childish name calling. Classy. Most degrees are pretty worthless now and just put people into massive debt, the gap between rich and poor is only getting bigger and the only reason people in power see population growth as a good sign is there are more people to tax and screw. You started a dumb argument that you can't close as you sit on your ivory tower looking down on a race. gently caress off yeah you're going to anger me doing that especially when you have poo poo for nothing to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Veskit posted:You started a dumb argument that you can't close as you sit on your ivory tower looking down on a race. gently caress off yeah you're going to anger me doing that especially when you have poo poo for nothing to say. I've had plenty to say and you've avoided all of it, i've never attacked or looked down on a race itt and you think you win arguments by calling people "dumb", "retard", and "rear end in a top hat". Does this tactic work for you in real life? Calling people a retard gets them to agree with you and come over to your side? We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree but I can't for the life of me take anything you say as reasonable when you absolutely have to insult and attack anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. I'm going to do as others have done in this thread and just leave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:You're whole gimmick is baiting people though? Nice to see you so easily devolve to childish name calling. Classy. He usually has a point though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:I've had plenty to say and you've avoided all of it, i've never attacked or looked down on a race itt and you think you win arguments by calling people "dumb", "retard", and "rear end in a top hat". Does this tactic work for you in real life? Calling people a retard gets them to agree with you and come over to your side? Why would i take you seriously when you've made one point the past 3 pages. I doubt we'll agree on much when you're trying to explain to me how badly my race has it when you don't have a point of reference to anything. IRQ posted:He usually has a point though. Yeah there are times I don't and just go for the fun of it but seriously nothing more infuriating then being told what's good for you by people with no perspective. It's like jenny mcarthy telling you not to vaccinate your children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Why! Why did you bite!?IRQ posted:He usually has a point though. No he doesn't. His latest post prior to yours proves that. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
rapeface posted:
The list can be made of the party candidates that lost in their ridings but got the highest vote share, to avoid a list that's just made by the party itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
rapeface posted:
I guess ultimately different electorates will respond to different electoral methods in different ways. For example, compulsory voting would never fly in a million years in New Zealand due to our broadly anti-authoritarian nature, and while it seems popular in Australia, the discussion here generally tends more towards something like paying people to vote, rather than punishing them for not. quote:
Yes, one of MMPs weaknesses is that the 'person vote', as we call it, is still done under FPTP. I wouldn't describe party lists as a weakness though; we accept that a party will appoint a PM, a thing Australia has some recent experience with, and I don't see how a party clearly laying out their full party list before and at the polls is any more of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:Yes, one of MMPs weaknesses is that the 'person vote', as we call it, is still done under FPTP. I wouldn't describe party lists as a weakness though; we accept that a party will appoint a PM, a thing Australia has some recent experience with, and I don't see how a party clearly laying out their full party list before and at the polls is any more of an issue. Well, as an example, last election, I voted mostly Greeens. There was a Labor refuge lawyer with tons of experience though, and being able to put her higher than some of the Greens who were really young and inexperienced (like 22 years old or something) was cool. I would think having FPTP for local reps would result in the same issues in the US of two major parties move ever closer to another and stifle independent candidates. Do you guys get many independents elected? Having STV for local and then building the proportions with MMP would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
rapeface posted:Well, as an example, last election, I voted mostly Greeens. There was a Labor refuge lawyer with tons of experience though, and being able to put her higher than some of the Greens who were really young and inexperienced (like 22 years old or something) was cool. No you're right, the two major parties to gain most of the local rep seats, but it pays to remember that the party vote is what determines your actual presence in parliament, local seats only come into play when the party gets a larger proportion of local seats than their party vote. Really, the party vote is everything unless you're a 1 person party. We do use STV for all our local body, but I think the general thinking around the time we switched to MMP was that explaining MMP to the population was complex enough without adding STV onto it. I broadly agree that switching to STV for local reps would be positive, but this draws me back to the original point; you need to get it right the first time, because people have little to no appetite for change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I have no idea what was screaming in the studio audience this week, but it sounded like some sort of bird, or maybe a monkey. Basically something you would hear in a tropical rainforest if it was trying to ward off some predator or potential rival for mating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I can't believe the mental gymnastics a person (a loving doctor) has to go through to make 'uh huh' an acceptably evasive answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
John doesn't seem to grasp that one of Trump's biggest strengths is not giving a gently caress about how the media perceives him(which in turn exposes how superficial and pointless it all is anyway), as evident on his segment on how he "bombed" at the charity dinner. Everything Trump does is completely intentional. He didn't make those comments at the dinner hoping to get laughs at all, it was to show his supporters how relentless he is. A lot of big time comedy talk shows like the Weekly Show refuse to acknowledge this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Ausmund posted:John doesn't seem to grasp that one of Trump's biggest strengths is not giving a gently caress about how the media perceives him(which in turn exposes how superficial and pointless it all is anyway), as evident on his segment on how he "bombed" at the charity dinner. Everything Trump does is completely intentional. He didn't make those comments at the dinner hoping to get laughs at all, it was to show his supporters how relentless he is. A lot of big time comedy talk shows like the Weekly Show refuse to acknowledge this. Then he has hissy fit about now snl is making fun of his and how snl is out to get him
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Then he has hissy fit about now snl is making fun of his and how snl is out to get him
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Were are all the polls since the debate? I need my fix.What am I supposed to do once this is over?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Were are all the polls since the debate? I need my fix.What am I supposed to do once this is over? 538 is good for all your election ocd needs. The first post-debate poll dropped yesterday and had clinton up by 12.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Ausmund posted:It's intentional. He knows exactly what he's doing and how it looks. Do you really think he got this far in the election by accident? He using sensationalism against itself as free publicity. This is a really stupid argument though. "EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET ME BY TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS I DID. WHY DOESN'T OBAMA HAVE 13 WOMEN SAYING HE ASSAULTED THEM? ALSO THOSE WOMEN ARE TOO UGLY TO ASSAULT AND WILL BE SUED" "Donald Trump continues to be a scumbag." "Hahah excellent they're still talking about me!!!!" Like, maybe it's just the guy who's literally never not been a millionaire and grew up surrounded by wealth and privilege is genuinely just kinda stupid and is prone to having tantrums when he doesn't get his way as evidenced by the countless other times he did exactly this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Like, maybe it's just the guy who's literally never not been a millionaire and grew up surrounded by wealth and privilege is genuinely just kinda stupid and is prone to having tantrums when he doesn't get his way as evidenced by the countless other times he did exactly this? On the one hand I can't bring myself to believe that the poo poo Trump says is real and not some crazy made up persona designed to whip the libertarians/hard right into a frenzy which means it has to be fake but on the other hand I also can't believe that anyone could make up this stuff which means it has to be genuine. I genuinely can't tell what the gently caress is going on. Edit: I think whoever described Trump as the human equivalent of youtube comments might have been onto something, he's ironic but un-ironic at the same time. He's talking poo poo but he also believes the poo poo he says. Or does he? There's no way of telling. He'll say something and then completely contradict himself later, he's a walking Schrodinger generator. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This is a really stupid argument though. Snowglobe of Doom posted:On the one hand I can't bring myself to believe that the poo poo Trump says is real and not some crazy made up persona designed to whip the libertarians/hard right into a frenzy which means it has to be fake but on the other hand I also can't believe that anyone could make up this stuff which means it has to be genuine. I genuinely can't tell what the gently caress is going on. And I feel that's what a lot of people are afraid to acknowledge, that all their values and sensibilities might just be bullshit. That Trump might be right. Instead they latch onto the "2016 WHAT IS HAPPENING AHHHHHH" mindset when all their attempts to shame and disparage fail, without really looking any further into it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Trump hasn't done or said one thing that would put off his core fanbase. There's probably not enough of them to win him the presidency, but enough of them to ensure he will 'succeed' in the long term. The Trump TV is probably real and it will probably keep him in the headlines for a long time to come. As long as he doesn't call NASCAR gay, they'll keep supporting him. He's either a smart guy pretending to be dumb, or a dumb guy pretending to be smart but he rides the line so hard it's honestly hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:06
|
|
