1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#352 Nov 30 2016 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 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
******
49,744 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
*****
13,369 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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
***
3,358 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
******
49,744 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
*****
10,152 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
*****
13,228 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
*****
10,152 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
******
49,744 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
******
49,744 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
******
29,237 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
***
3,358 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
******
49,744 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
*****
13,369 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)