|
It's not really a perfect analogy, but I think the idea implied by the name would be a race where the first person to pass a certain post is assumed to be "the fastest" and all the other runners automatically lose regardless of whether anyone had actually passed the finish line when the race is called. In the same way that in FPTP voting whoever gets a plurality is assumed to be the "most popular" even if a majority of the electorate would rather have one of the other candidates. So in the analogy "the post" is "getting more votes than anyone else" and "the finish line" is "getting a majority". STV, for example, has multiple rounds of vote-counting. The person who gets the most votes in the first round is "first past the post" but that doesn't mean they win because winning requires a majority, so vote-counting might go to a second round or a third round or N-2 rounds until someone gets an absolute majority. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 7, 2019 |
#
¿
Jun 7, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Skex posted:Probably not, but if they make a good enough showing it might encourage more investment in the state on the part of the party, I voted for a war criminal in 2016 in Texas and then Trump won anyway and then Democrats nominated a cop for governor who didn't even campaign so looks like voting for a war criminal didn't do the things you said so I probably won't do it again E: also I knocked on doors for Beto and people turned out for him and he took that as his cue to abandon the state for something better so welp VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jun 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
West Virginians also supported the teachers' strike, and the legislature responded by writing new legislation to make striking illegal, so it's clear that electing specific politicians does not prove that the electorate agrees with every position those politicians hold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
You could look at Republicans controlling the entire state government, and look at them passing anti-teacher legislation, and say "ah West Virginia elected an anti-teacher government so clearly no pro-teacher politician could win with such an anti-teacher electorate. Therefore to win as a Democrat you must triangulate towards an anti-teacher platform" and you would be 110% wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Or for that matter what Senator Clinton's campaign was anything like you say. Secretary Clinton, you mean. Not sure why you're acting so authoritative on Secretary Clinton's campaign when you don't even know her title during the campaign but anyhoo Hillary Clinton: better ideas on healthcare will never ever come to pass  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4 https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/758501814945869824 Everything is fine, the system works.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Sanders attracted a large portion of Republican crossover voters, obviously this is bad. Brought to you by the same people who intone "we must adopt right-wing policy to win Republican crossover voters"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Yeah the argument being offered makes zero sense at all. The argument is that some number of people who voted for Sanders preferred Trump to Sanders, and this proves that Sanders is too far to the left for the West Virginia electorate and cannot win. But the more conservative Democratic candidate got destroyed both in the general election and in the primary even among Democrats. She certainly wasn't pulling any of those Sanders-supporting Republicans. Not only is their assertion that Hillary is better at appealing to Republican voters demonstrably empirically false, but the same quality they claim she has they also consider a bad thing when anyone else actually has it. Whatever it is West Virginians like about Republicans, it certainly isn't their economic conservatism because a Democrat adopting Republican economic policies is a suicide move. Just assuming that the electorate agrees with every single policy advanced by the winning political party is absurd in a two-party FPTP system like ours. That argument is only ever advanced by people who agree with Republican economic policy and who want two economically conservative parties with largely identical policies on everything except LGBT rights and abortion, so that the only political debate and choice allowed is on those two issues and those two issues alone. And even the people making this argument know this. The logical conclusion of their argument is that West Virginia Democrats should start a "gently caress teachers" campaign because the Republicans won the election and they're now passing gently caress teachers legislation so clearly that must be what the voters want. And yet that inescapable conclusion of their argument isn't endorsed, those people seem to recognize that this conclusion is so absurd it's a bridge too far even for them. Even they recognize that their own argument is clearly and obviously full of poo poo, they just don't care because it sounds better than "well I want Democrats to be conservative because I'm conservative". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If we use "next President should be less liberal than Obama" as a proxy for "Trump voters who voted in the Dem Primary for the hell of it", then the results look more like a dead heat or a close win for Sanders instead of a Sanders blowout. (1) this is a bad proxy because asking for voter self-identification of policies as "liberal" or "conservative" tells you what those words mean to voters, and nothing about the policies they support. People in the primary thread love to cite polls of black voters self-identifying as "conservative" but if you poll their support for specific policies instead of just asking "are you liberal or conservative" you find that economically they're to the left of white Democrats and of the Democratic party but that also they have higher levels of religious adherence than white Democrats so they're more conservative on issues like gay rights and abortion. It would be a mistake to assume that just because a West Virginia Democrat says they want a president more conservative than Obama then it means they must want tax cuts for the rich, banking deregulation, and Ryancare. Most of the time people who want Medicare For All along with gays back in the closet will describe themselves as "conservative". This is even backed up by data.  Fiscally conservative voters basically don't exist, outside of the richest 1% and a few dumbshit internet libertarians. A significant chunk of Trump voters are very economically liberal, they're just extremely socially conservative. Hillary Clinton offered them nothing they want (economic conservatism plus a reluctant social liberalism) and Trump offered them half of what they want (social conservatism) while at least being willing to pretend to support the other have of what they want (economic liberalism), so it's not hard to see why 2016 went as it did. From here we can go one of two ways, we can ignore the data, swallow the line from the liberal donor class that we need to move right fiscally (something no voters want at all, but which coincidentally happens to be in the class interests of Democratic Party funders). Or we can look at the empirical data about voter preferences that we have, and try to peel off some of the roughly half of Republican voters who want economic liberalism by offering the inverse of the deal they're getting from Republicans now. (2) even if we ignore the foregoing and assume anyone who says they wish Obama were more  conservative voted for Trump, since the actual WV general election results were a Trump blowout (69-26, a 43-point landslide for Trump), if your interpretation of the primary polling data is that it points to a dead heat or narrow Sanders win in a theoretical Sanders v Trump GE you just proved thatJethro posted:WV, and by extension other Republican strongholds, are full of people waiting to shower a progressive candidate with votes What else would you call a 43+ point jump! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Jethro posted:
Ah ok I misinterpreted you I thought you were trying to extrapolate the primary results to the general election, since that was the argument you were trying to defeat (that Sanders would do better against Trump than Clinton did). I didn't realize you were trying to unskew the WV primary to show that Clinton "really" won because it's better for your narrative if Sanders voters "didn't count" for some reason. lol ok sure buddy, whatever you have to tell yourself I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Then I clarify that I'm turning a Sanders blowout into a close Sanders victory, so that must mean I think Clinton actually won? Well the "Clinton actually won" part was a bit of a humorous exaggeration on my part because this is a comedy forum, but essentially yes you've convinced yourself that a blowout loss for her was  a tie if you unskew the election and declare that votes for her opponent don't count.Which okay sure whatever if that's what you need to believe, but also: lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Yes, I am the deluded one for thinking when 15-30% of the voters say "my vote doesn't count", I should believe them. correct First of all, one exit poll doesn't invalidate the actual results of the election. Even if that 15-30% figure is accurate and not one of the many lovely 2016 polls (polls in other primaries missed by 20 points it was unreal), and that it's representative of all the Democrats and Independents who didn't vote in the primaries but would vote in the general, and even if we could be certain that none of them would change their minds, that still doesn't prove that those people didn't actually prefer Bernie to Clinton. Voting in the presidential primary of the party you don't intend to vote for (either because your own party's primary was effectively over as the GOP's was because Trump already had it in the bag, or because you intend to vote Democrat downballot like many in WV still do) and picking the candidate you'd rather see win if yours loses is a thing. Bernie and Trump ran on "I will help you", Clinton ran on "better things aren't possible, but how about another Middle East War and also let's put you out of work". It is not at all surprising that who liked/believed Trump the most still preferred the Democrat who promised to help them to the Democrat who suggested they code themselves some bootstraps.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t support Biden and I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (I support Warren). But if he’s the nominee you’d have to be pretty stupid not to vote for him. When you’re going to get one of two choices, and one choice is clearly much better than the other, I'm going to stop you right there, Joe Biden is Donald Trump (D) E: and I voted for a child-bombing psycho in 2016 because Trump somehow still managed to be worse than her
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Biden isn't going to nominate the net Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, he is just going to let McConnel hold the seat open until the next Republican president can fill it with the next Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. holy poo poo even in their wildest fantasies of political victory libs enable Republican policy
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If the Republicans control the Senate, then it doesn't matter who the President is when it comes to a Supreme Court seat. Yes exactly, that's why there's no point in voting for a candidate who actively campaigns to keep Republicans in Congress and defends them for the bullshit they did stealing that seat. If the Democrats choose Biden they are choosing to put Kavanaugh II on the court. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, even in that case doesn't that still give you four plus more years to work on your glorious revolution or whatever it is you are doing to save us while you busy not voting for anyone? Whatever 'real solution' you think should happen would get 4 more years to happen. No, the opposite. Biden will ensure a Republican supermajority followed by a Republican President worse than Trump. Also, I vote. I may not vote for Biden but I will cast a ballot no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Your vote doesn't matter, vote for whomever you want or don't vote. That's why enthusiasm is so important, because there's an opportunity cost to voting, especially for the working class people and the minorities subject to voter suppression who make up a significant portion of the Democratic voter base. You have to get people to take off work, to juggle their family responsibilities, to stand in line for possibly hours to cast a single vote that they know for a fact will almost certainly not matter in a presidential election. 2000 was the closest election ever, and it still wasn't decided by a single vote. Rational appeals to get people to vote don't work because from the perspective of the individual the rational course of action is never to vote if there's any inconvenient time or financial cost. People need to get irrationally excited in order to actually vote. If you're at the point where you're having to talk yourself into voting for the lesser segregationist because he will only be status quo lovely to minorities instead of mega lovely, then it doesn't matter if you vote for them because millions of other people are making the rational choice to go to work and feed their families rather than send a meaningless signal of support to some rear end in a top hat they only chose out of despair and a sense of grudging duty fulfillment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
If you want to vote for a party that will never win, I've never understood why it's the antivax crystal woowoo party instead of an actual anticapitalist party. Or just writing in Marx.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 11:58
|
|
|
A write-in campaign can technically win >270 EV. But like a Green victory it aint gonna happen. I get being too pure to vote for one of the only two parties that can win. But once you no longer care about winning, I don't get compromising for some dumb anti-science con artists since at that point you're free to vote for anyone you want, even someone good!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:i understand that words no longer have meaning, but even i'm struggling with this one People with medical condidtions that prevent them from being vaccinated suffer from anti-vaxxer caused outbreaks more than healthy vaccinated people do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Phone posted:marianne williamson isn't going to be president. jill stein is not going to be president. the green party is not going to seize control of the federal government. Yeah but if your defense of the Greens' platform is "well they'll never win anyway", then there's no need to vote for them, you can vote for someone actually good who will also never win if that's what you want to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The fact that you’re trying to defend voting for the worse evil I'm not though, I said you should vote for someone actually good, there are anticapitalist candidates who aren't woo woo snake oil salesmen. Crystal mom grifter isn't going to save society from collapse
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Just lol if the Dems nominate anyone but Bernie and you vote for them anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Could people elaborate on what they believe the alternatives to “electoralism” to be? No but I just feel like linking to another D&D thread for no particular reason: Let us discuss (but not advocate for) political violence against the state!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
You should worry, 99% of armaments in this country are under the command of people with terrible political opinions, and they exchange the commander-in-chief of the largest pile of armaments in human history between representatives of two identical and terrible political parties
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Electoralism is when the ruling class presents the people with two identical choices for the office of executive figurehead, and then when one of them gets 26% of the vote they insist this is the expression of the popular will and therefore it is the true desires of the people being fulfilled when their guy carries out the same orders for the plutocrats that the other gal would have done. Please do not think too deeply about the fact that a majority of the population refused to vote at all, that obviously means they approve of the status quo and agree with everything either candidate would do. To suspect otherwise would discredit the idea of representative democracy so obviously we must not reason about this anymore. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Does that happen in reverse? Will Trump (a really bad politician on Team Red) drive up support for the far left? Seems to me that the Republicans are gaining power in terms of Senate seats and Supreme Court judges, as well as other federal judges. You tell me, what is the support for single payer compared to 2015. What has happened with labor activism, strikes, wildcat strikes even in Republican dominated states like WV and OK
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I get mandatory voting and I get alternative runoff vote schemes, but why force you to rank EVERY candidate? What if there's more than one choice for a question on the ballot I absolutely do not ever want to get my vote? I think it creates odd results of your vote has nowhere to go. E: but it's probably worth it, after all if there are like 12 choices are voters really ranking their preferences, or are they just ranking their top few and then arbitrarily filling in the rest VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Dec 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Venomous posted:I mean, if we take that political compass website as in any way accurate, lmao at Tulsi Gabbard, a Mohdi supporter who constantly complained that Obama was soft on Islam, being left libertarian at all, let alone more libertarian than Bernie Sanders
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2019 22:43
|
|
then Biden's only choice for a Republican VP who isn't outright fash is Bill Weld, and I have no idea who Bill Weld is apart from the fact that he's probably an ancap, with all the creepy poo poo that implies.
|
Luckily I don't have to worry about what to do with my vote if Bloomberg is the nominee because he'll never win Texas so I can just write in Bernard Sanders
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
I agree but I still can't bring myself to vote for Trump, I'll write in Bernie or something.. Bloomberg would lose 40+ states anyway, my vote won't matter at all
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:I think I'd also make the choice to continue not being a rapist as well. Yeah it's easy to say that when you're posting on the Internet from your mom's basement, but when you're a real leader faced with that decision it's no easy choice!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Thank God a rapist is going to be president! wait what did I just say, are we the baddies?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
How are u posted:I heard "Only Bernie can save us from climate change" so, so, so much over the last year. Now I see so many of you throwing up your hands and seeming to say gently caress it who cares about climate change if we can't have Bernie. Somehow you think that Biden (or any other Dem if Biden doesn't make it) would be just as bad as if not worse (????) than Trump on this, and that is just so deeply and utterly wrong that I have to believe y'all are just trolling because nobody can be that dumb. What specifically will Biden do in office that will prevent climate change
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
How are u posted:Any Democratic Admin will be 1000% more receptive to and proactive on climate legislation than any Republican. 1000% times zero is zero
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The Democratic Party is as deeply in climate denialism as the Republican Party. Democrats don't explicitly deny that climate change is real, so their denialism is more palatable to the pedigreed academic professionals who make up their support in online forums like this one. Their denialism lies in claiming that useless and inadequate feel-good policies will solve it. Which is exactly as unscientific as saying "Gawd told me it's all a Chinese hoax" but since it takes more than two minutes to explain why that is, almost nobody has the attention span required to comprehend this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yeah see none of that is anything that Joe Biden is campaigning on or saying he wants to do. In 2008 did Obama and Biden campaign on or say they wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
You must never pay attention to what politicians do, only listen to what they say. Trump says he won't cut social security and Medicare, and he also says he wants to give every American the most beautiful health care plan you've ever seen, isn't that great?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
How are u posted:Whoever is the Dem is going to win. 100,000 - 1,000,000+ dead Americans. 30% unemployment. 2018 midterms. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that Trump will win in November. President Hillary Clinton proved that no matter how bad the Democrat is, Trump can never win
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:I do think that faced with the choice between Biden and Trump that we should choose Biden. There are more than two candidates on the ballot. Just because the media tells you you have to vote for a rapist doesn't make it true. If you want to convince me to vote for Biden you'd better hope the allegations turn out to be false, because I won't vote for a rapist sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
How are u posted:This is a thread specifically for people to talk about protest voting and electoralism. You may have mixed up your bookmarks and may think this is the CSPAM Bernie thread. why do you care what we do if he's going to win anyway even from a philosophical standpoint, if Biden is going to win no matter what I do, then there's no benefit to my signaling approval for a rapist so the only moral choice is to vote for someone else
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Isn't it disgusting how Republicans all voted for a rapist because of team loyalty. It's despicable how their loyalty was to the wrong rapist!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 01:00
|
|