|
Eh It's a sufficiently weird edge case that's probably impossible to pull off without advance knowledge of how people will vote and would require a huge amount of coordination to pull off. The realistic possibility of having to cast a strategic vote under ranked choice is almost non-existent. The reason FPTP sucks so bad is you pretty much have to vote strategically every time. I don't really care if a strategic vote is theoretically possible if I'd never actually have to make that choice.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Not sure I can get behind just shitcanning regional representation entirely. Also, FPTP > IRV is a hell of claim to make and your edge-case hypothetical does not remotely come close to proving it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
If it weren't for superdelegates, I'd probably be satisfied with handing it off to someone else on a second round vote. More satisfied if there was any actual democratic aspect to selecting the delegate for anyone except caucus states, but reasonably satisfied even as is. First past the post however is infinitely more democratic and Respecting of the WIll of the Voters than anything involving superdelegates, which is the actual situation we're faced with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
The French have clearly figured it out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
Honestly don’t see deadly shoe’s point here. If you had a situation where one candidate had 30% of the votes and two others had 20% and two more had %15 then sure I can see how you might say it’s not ideal that there isn’t an additional round of votes or a ranked choice system that works until there is a clear majority. Problems with fptp are well known. However, we don’t have any of those secondary options so the only metric we do have is the original split of votes. There simply isn’t anyone else with a better claim in this example than the one who originally got 30%, the only other option would be to give the nomination directly to someone who got less votes which is objectively against the one and only measurement we have. Letting someone with only 30% win isn’t ideal but handing it to someone with 20 or 15 would be strictly worse than that so what exactly is the point of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
Deadly Shoes point seems to be that if the rules, admittedly un-democratic though they may be, allow the party to nominate a candidate who did not win the most popular votes and delegates then it is an ethical imperative that they do that?? They seem to conceive of delegates as elected representatives who must be trusted to re-allocate their votes to a less popular candidate without it being neccessary for their to be any actual mechanisms in place to inform that decision and also they seem to think it would be damaging to the position they've staked out to even acknowledge super delegates exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:46
|
|
|
Put another way: if you've criticized the un-fair un-democratic system currently in place then it is hypocritical to win an electoral victory within that system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Serious talk: Regardless of stupid delegate systems, another thing you are all missing is that Ranked Choice is a bad system anyways and arguably the only thing worse than FTTP. Ideally, legislature should just be proportional representation (based on voting for a party and the percentages getting given delegates accordingly), while executive positions should be chosen through Fallback Voting (my favorite), or Approval/Range voting. But for single winners it really depends on what you value and what you think can go wrong. By Arrow's Theorem every single winner voting system fails something. IRV failing Monotonicity is, in general, less hosed up than than the things that can go wrong in other systems. Approval and Fallback voting are both incredibly susceptible to counter-intuitive, but seductive, strategic voting as well as to candidate nomination fuckery. And if it all worked fine it would still likely end in the same way for your three way example because in round two the libs get all your SocDem votes plus the fascist votes, but their second votes get split so they get top majority. I prefer a system that occasionally fails Monotonicity because when it does it reflects a consensus winner in a divided electorate, over one that fails Later No-harm since the latter is much more likely to mess with how people vote and campaign. Approval fails Majority loser so I don't know how anyone could imagine that's a viable system. In fallback voting you're trading the possibility of voting for someone you hate helping your candidate by knocking someone else out whose voters you hope will go to you (IRV's monotonicity failure, an edge case where the risk in voting strategically is hardly every worthwhile), for you now having to consider the same kind of thing all the way down your ballot (Falllback's later no harm failure, which comes into play much more often). Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:49
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Honestly don’t see deadly shoe’s point here. That's it - no need to dig deeper. If Sanders' and Biden's roles were reversed he'd be here howling about how the superdelegates need to hand the candidate with the plurality of the delegates the nomination and that to do anything else would be both undemocratic and severely dangerous to the party's chances in November both at the top of the ballot and everywhere else. You don't need to dig around in the entrails of arguments like these to try to divine some hidden and deeper meaning: what you're looking at is mostly poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sanders-demolishes-bloomberg-buttigieg-and-klobuchar-head-to-head-says-new-poll.html Lmfao
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
Would you still support FPTP over the delegate system if the race was between 5 flavors of leftists and Bloomberg with a tiny lead? The next election the nazi party will most likely win a plurality in my country. I'm voting for the leftmost party as long as they are prepared to make deals with the neoliberal parties if necessary to keep the nazis out of government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Would you still support FPTP over the delegate system if the race was between 5 flavors of leftists and Bloomberg with a tiny lead? If I found myself in almost the exact opposite situation than the one I'm in now I'm willing to believe my feelings would be different. Also I don't think most of us are arguing FPTP is good, we're saying that party functionaries giving the nomination to a less popular candidate with less chance of winning, worse (in many cases dramatically) policies and an anti-worker pro-capital ideology would be bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
I just skimmed over the debate. Is Biden really the only candidate who mentioned the Las Vegas shooting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 10:58
|
|
|
I don't see a contradiction between acknowledging that FPTP is bad and undemocratic and ought to be replaced, and thinking that, of the ways a plurality-but-not-majority scenario could be decided within the rules we have, going with most votes wins is the least undemocratic method. I think the other guy was confusing people calling for the least undemocratic option available with people endorsing FPTP as a democratic method simpliciter
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:I don't see a contradiction between acknowledging that FPTP is bad and undemocratic and ought to be replaced, and thinking that, of the ways a plurality-but-not-majority scenario could be decided within the rules we have, going with most votes wins is the least undemocratic method. I think the other guy was confusing people calling for the least undemocratic option available with people endorsing FPTP as a democratic method simpliciter Simple confusion doesn't really explain how hard they were working to avoid acknowledging that superdelegates exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
i hate myself so i am watching the replay of this since i couldnt watch it last night
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
hhhat posted:i hate myself so i am watching the replay of this since i couldnt watch it last night It’s entertaining as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:It’s entertaining as hell. i am seeing people get burnt a lot so thats a good thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
hhhat posted:i am seeing people get burnt a lot so thats a good thing Spoiler alert for how Liz is going to finish this election: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:Spoiler alert for how Liz is going to finish this election: i dont know the movie but based on what ive seen so far I imagine the movie ends with that guy telling everyone how much he's secretly hated them all this time, and hugging a vampire?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
hhhat posted:i dont know the movie Clearly you need to familiarize yourself with Monster Squad, the second best movie from 1987 involving a vampire. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:Clearly you need to familiarize yourself with Monster Squad, the second best movie from 1987 involving a vampire. oh yeah, i missed it when it was the 80s and I saw it again at some point in the 2000s sorry, it was kinda forgettable
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Serious talk: Regardless of stupid delegate systems, another thing you are all missing is that Ranked Choice is a bad system anyways and arguably the only thing worse than FTTP. Ideally, legislature should just be proportional representation (based on voting for a party and the percentages getting given delegates accordingly), while executive positions should be chosen through Fallback Voting (my favorite), or Approval/Range voting. RCV is strictly superior to Approval/Ranged unless your goal is to get the shittiest candidate possible - which is why the people who push Approval voting over RCV are all mush brained centrists desperate to kill off third parties and vote splitting. Its as strong a guarantee of permanent dual party control as FPTP is (stronger, arguably) unless the voters engage in massive amounts tactical voting. It's just FPTP with extra steps and its dumb as hell. Also, Mixed Member Proportional voting is good, but most versions of proportional voting are utter poo poo that amount to letting the elites pick whose in government instead of letting the people decide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Approval voting seems real bad, because if a majority of people want the socialist to win, but everyone votes for the centrist just in case, the centrist will get the most votes every time despite a majority preferring someone else. You'd have to strategic vote every time, either gamble that your guy will win if you don't vote for the centrist, or gamble that the fash might win unless you do vote for the centrist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
hhhat posted:i am seeing people get burnt a lot so thats a good thing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
no i think thats from the new doom game? it was pretty good. I hope they continually poo poo on him, and bernie just gets to talk about healthcare and wealth inequality while they fight for that vaunted distant second
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Bernie needs to practice a better comeback to when the right calls him rich. Yeah, Bernie is richer than probably all of us, but his net worth is about a quarter percent of a billionaire, never mind a multi-billionaire. For every hundred bucks a billionaire has, Bernie has 25 cents. You have THREE HOUSES! Man, shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
A situation where Bernie walks into the convention with 30% and Biden or whoever has 29%, I could see a (pre mask slip) Warren coming out as the compromise candidate. It would still be a loss in November but if you squint you can see the argument for it. It's not going to be a 1 point Bernie lead, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Sorry tangent here, but your avatar is very confusing. You were banned like 11 years ago but my first thought is that you were just recently banned. Honestly I could buy you a new avatar if you message me an image and title. Or I could venmo you or something, please change your avatar. Am I the only person that finds that weird? E: grammar America Inc. fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
WOWEE ZOWEE posted:Sorry tangent here, but your a avatar is very confusing. You were banned like 11 years ago but my first thought is that you were just recently banned. this trips me up too
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Bernie needs to practice a better comeback to when the right calls him rich. Yeah, Bernie is richer than probably all of us, but his net worth is about a quarter percent of a billionaire, never mind a multi-billionaire. For every hundred bucks a billionaire has, Bernie has 25 cents. I kinda agree. He needs to hit back with the "socialism isn't a vote of poverty, I acknowledge my privilege but it's not incompatible with wanting a better world".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Bernie needs to practice a better comeback to when the right calls him rich. Yeah, Bernie is richer than probably all of us, but his net worth is about a quarter percent of a billionaire, never mind a multi-billionaire. For every hundred bucks a billionaire has, Bernie has 25 cents. Bernie’s situation is what the middle class should be capable of in terms of financial power when they reach retirement age. Three “houses” and a hefty savings by the time you reach your 70s sounds about normal for someone who was given the opportunity to save over decades with a living wage. That opportunity does not exist for 80-90% of Americans, even though that was the relative norm for the (white) middle class mid-century. Instead, Bloomberg and Butt just hammered on “hurrrr three houses” like it was some fat cat hypocritical stockpile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Here's a study showing the average and median net worth of americans lumped by age cohort. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ The median is a more useful stat here, because the average is distorted i.e. the Bill Gates in a room of homeless people problem. And those stats don't make it clear that there is a apparent generational wealth gap: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/03/precariousness-modern-young-adulthood-one-chart/%3foutputType=amp
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Dias posted:I kinda agree. He needs to hit back with the "socialism isn't a vote of poverty, I acknowledge my privilege but it's not incompatible with wanting a better world". I don't see Bernie saying "I acknowledge my privilege." Its not the way he talks. Honestly, I think his answer was fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I don't see Bernie saying "I acknowledge my privilege." Its not the way he talks. Honestly, I think his answer was fine. Oh, that's not supposed to be a literal line, just the spirit of it. His answer was fine but that's something I feel socialists should actively challenge whenever they can, anti-communists love to playthe "but how can you be a socialist if you own stuff, HUH?" card and it's so absurdly stupid that it deserves mockery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:Bernie’s situation is what the middle class should be capable of in terms of financial power when they reach retirement age. Three “houses” and a hefty savings by the time you reach your 70s sounds about normal for someone who was given the opportunity to save over decades with a living wage. Also, he lives in two places because of his job. The people in Washington who can do that do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Only ascetic monks which have already absolved themselves of all material wants can argue for socialism
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Remember that the most effective socialist pitch in American history, so effective they straight up murdered the guy responsible to stop him from becoming president, was "Every man a king", not "every man a peasant".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
WOWEE ZOWEE posted:Only ascetic monks which have already absolved themselves of all material wants can argue for socialism Of course they would want socialism, they've never had a real job
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
