I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
Could you summarise your link please? I've not got much inclination to watch almost an hour of that.
I'm still not seeing how that aspect is different to FPTP.
FPTP:
Trump: 1,000
Clinton: 975
Stein: 50
Are Stein and Clinton voters forfeiting their vote?
Preferential (amended to include Stein/- voters):
Trump/- : 1,000
Clinton/- : 500
Clinton/Stein: 475
Stein/Clinton: 40
Stein/- : 10
Round 1: Trump 1,000; Clinton 975; Stein 50
Stein/Clinton voters switch to Clinton
Round 2: Trump 1,000; Clinton 1,015
Are Stein/- voters throwing away their vote any more than FPTP-Stein voters?
I guess where I'm having the disconnect is where you talk about votes being thrown away after each round of voting. To me, it appears that in FPTP, there's one round of voting and ALL the non-winning-candidate votes are thrown away. Anyone who doesn't want one of the major candidates to win has exactly the option they have under FPTP, which is Candidate/-. Or even ranking all the non-dominant candidates, and not the dominant candidates, so they have a _better_ chance of preventing one of the dominant candidates from winning.
You'll need to unpack that a little for me, because I'm not seeing it. What do you define as 'disenfranchised' in this circumstance?
If we passed a law that said that you could only vote Republican or Democrat in an election, and anyone who didn't want to vote Republican or Democrat would be deprived of their vote, would you regard this election as fair?
Because that is precisely what this is. You are legally mandating that someone vote between one of two dominant parties, which is government interference in an election, and you're saying that anyone who doesn't want either of those two does not get a vote, which is disenfranchisement.
There is no way one can argue that preferential voting creates a fair election.
This must be some new definition of 'precisely what this is', because 'mandating voting for Republican or Democrat' is not what this is.
To start with, you have the same voting options as you do in the current FPTP system (Trump/-, Clinton/-, Stein/-), but you also have the option of expressing a second preference (Trump/Clinton/-, Trump/Stein/-, Clinton/Trump/-, Clinton/Stein/-, Stein/Clinton/-, Stein/Trump/-) or a third preference (though I think the third preference isn't strictly relevant in an election with three candidates).
Preferential voting just means that - if your preferred candidate doesn't win - you can effectively vote in a run-off between the remaining candidates. If you choose to do so! You don't have to! You're not saying anyone who doesn't want either of the two main parties doesn't get a vote, because you can vote third party (in our example, Stein/- is still an option).
In Scenario B, the Stein/Clinton votes (as Stein doesn't win) shift to Clinton; Clinton then wins with a majority. I would argue that the Stein/Clinton votes actually do count in this scenario. Their vote said: "I want Stein, but I would rather Clinton win than Trump." The system said "Stein has insufficient votes for victory, but you can use your vote to sway the Trump/Clinton decision." And that's what happened. They might not have gotten Stein, but their vote was Stein/Clinton, and not just Stein (if those 50 had voted Stein/-, rather than Stein/Clinton, Trump would have won). Why do their votes count any less than under Scenario A?
I've explained that in the very quote that you quoted.
Quote from Highroller »
Once again, there is a complete and total difference between the way the US is run right now, and an alternate version of the US in which everyone is legally mandated to vote Republican or Democrat or face being disenfranchised. The difference is the former is actually a free election, and the latter is not.
You'll need to unpack that a little for me, because I'm not seeing it. What do you define as 'disenfranchised' in this circumstance?
Once again, there is a complete and total difference between the way the US is run right now, and an alternate version of the US in which everyone is legally mandated to vote Republican or Democrat or face being disenfranchised. The difference is the former is actually a free election, and the latter is not.
The people who vote for a third party or independent candidate in our elections are not ignored.
I'm going to grab Verbal's example here and call it Scenario A: FPTP, so we're all working from a common scenario:
Lets say you have 1000 votes for trump, 975 votes for clinton, and 50 votes for Jill Stein.
In Scenario B, we have ranked voting. Everyone's rank 1 vote is as in Scenario A. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to say that Trump-first voters left their other votes blank, and 475 Clinton-first voters went for Stein second, but otherwise blank. However, all the Stein-first voters voted Clinton second.
So we have:
Scenario A:
Trump: 1,000
Clinton: 975
Stein: 50
Trump wins with a plurality. In your interpretation, the Stein votes count here.
In Scenario B, the Stein/Clinton votes (as Stein doesn't win) shift to Clinton; Clinton then wins with a majority. I would argue that the Stein/Clinton votes actually do count in this scenario. Their vote said: "I want Stein, but I would rather Clinton win than Trump." The system said "Stein has insufficient votes for victory, but you can use your vote to sway the Trump/Clinton decision." And that's what happened. They might not have gotten Stein, but their vote was Stein/Clinton, and not just Stein (if those 50 had voted Stein/-, rather than Stein/Clinton, Trump would have won). Why do their votes count any less than under Scenario A?
Also, let me take this moment to address yet another thing that I think is a problem with your voting system.
Let's say there are, I don't know, 16 candidates running for an office. I decide that I'm going to do the classic "child pushing every button in an elevator" play and fill in every single bubble, because weeeeeee! Bubbles! So I've cast a vote for all 16 candidates. So I've voted 16 times.
Let's say a second person, he's just doesn't give a crap about the election. This one seems ok. This one seems ok. This other person's alright. He just says screw it, can't be bothered, so he votes for all three. So he's voted 3 times.
Then the third person comes in, registered party member, very much ideologically in line with one of the parties, this candidate is perfect, exactly what he/she has been waiting to come along, and that person votes for that one candidate and no others. So he/she has voted once.
So, I get 16 votes for being an ********, someone gets three votes for being apathetic, and the third person who actually cares and exhibits a strong preference gets 1 vote.
If you have to rank them all, the candidates the voter doesn't care or know about will likely be ranked in whatever order they're listed on the ballot, and it's hardly fair for Senator Aardvark to get higher ranking in the polls than Representative Zyzzyx simply due to listing order.
Our ballots are randomised for exactly this reason. Is that not standard?
In New Zealand's current voting system (we were First Past The Post until 1996; in 1978, for example, one party got 16% of the vote, but only 1/92 seats), we get two votes for Members of Parliament: a party vote, and an electorate vote. Each party supplies a ranked list of candidates. The electorate vote allows us to vote for a candidate from our electorate (and they don't have to be from the party you vote for). When the votes are tallied, every electorate winner becomes an MP, and then candidates are added from the party lists to produce a Parliament in proportion to the party vote. The parties then negotiate until a bloc is formed with >50% of the seats.
This has resulted in 'minor' parties (i.e. not one of the big two) getting reasonable numbers of seats (15-30% of the total) in parliament.
The fear with this system (Mixed Member Proportional, MMP) is that a minor party will control the balance of power, and extort disproportionate concessions in exchange for its support. So far this has not happened; the major parties have balanced the interests of minor parties against each other, and against their own. In theory, should the minor parties want too much in return for their votes, the two major parties could ally instead. This has yet to happen, but would be an interesting outcome, given their historical enmity.
Well he funds groups that are no way inline with the right so I find it interesting to say the least.
That's vague. Could you be more specific?
From the little you've said, it's a pretty big leap from 'funds groups that aren't in lockstep with the monolithic Right' to 'is the puppet of a particular wealthy man'.
I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn't think it'd be as bad as it's been. It hasn't even been a week and it's spiraling so badly out of control. It really makes me wonder how exactly the next four years are going to have any silver lining when it comes to the government short of open revolt.
How is this bad? It's pretty awesome so far. He's doing basically the same things that almost every other POTUS candidate would have done but in funnier ways. For example, exposing steaming pile of garbage Buzzfeed and their fake news pals. One thing that impressed me so far is how much work the guy is putting in. He's on an absolute tear right now. I get the sense that we're supposed to be super pissed at the idea that American taxpayers aren't funding abortions overseas anymore but honestly that doesn't bother me.
I mean, if the only thing you feel you can do is fiddle that's all fine and dandy, but other people are going to be more concerned with putting out the fires he's setting. Granted there is only so much that can be done, but it makes me glad I live in California given that the state seems ready to fight him tooth and nail. Half-hearted resistance isn't really going to work here.
I'm not fiddling. I'm asking reasonable questions like "what has he done?" and getting Hitler comps as answers.
Obama bombs Yemen, wins Nobel Peace Prize. Trump places temporary ban on Yemeni immigration and he's Hitler. You see how this is difficult to take seriously? Meanwhile, the hijab is a symbol of female liberation and Western Christianity is repressive, Mexico is telling the U.S. that it can't do anything about its porous southern border all the while Mexico itself sure as heck is concerned about its southern border, NATO is whining about the U.S. being a poor ally when practically everyone besides the U.S., U.K. and Poland haven't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades, Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist just because he's treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to and leftists are outraged at the phrase "alternative facts" after they've been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
Maybe I need to start fiddling.
People are outraged at 'alternative facts' because, as a sop to his own ego, the President of the United States sent his Press Secretary out to assert a larger turnout at his inauguration than a previous one, and when called on these lies, his counselor said that they weren't lies, but 'alternative facts'.
For some reason, people seem concerned that the President and his administration are willing to lie to the people they govern in the face of blatant proof to the contrary, and over something so trivial. Quite how this relates to moral and cultural relativism, I'm not sure; how were the minds of your children warped?
Well, people who actually give a ***** about America and understand the gravity of the situation are worried. You do need to qualify that.
I'd also like to add to your list the fact that Donald Trump is convinced that millions of people voted illegally. Because of reasons he does not have to explain to you. So much so that he's going to call for an investigation. Again, he is calling for an investigation of an election HE WON based on NOTHING. All because he can't take the idea that he lost the popular vote to Clinton. Not even Fox News is backing up Trump on this one.
Trump's making prominent Republicans uneasy. Good. Enjoy your Faustian bargain, ********s.
Of course, Trump's own lawyers said there was no evidence of voter fraud, in an effort to stop recounts from going ahead. Also, why is Trump convinced that the supposed five million illegal votes were all for Clinton?
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
"Will they be accused of bias?" Does a bear crap in the woods? Is the Pope reptiloid?
But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
Unless they actually start curating (moving down or even removing) non-fact news articles. At which point we probably see the Conservapedia equivalent of Facebook form.
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
I wonder if part of the issue is that the internet throws the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides into harsh relief. In US nomenclature, I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal, but have had civil discussions here and elsewhere with conservatives. But when each group sees the worst of the other (and people do hunt for that worst, so that they can fire up their group), they get angry and afraid, which brings out more of that worst, eventually leading to the kind of polarisation you discuss.
Let's be honest here: Jill Stein is operating on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Whether at the direction of Clinton (unlikely), or out of some misguided attempt to shift the election results. In either case, the end goal has absolutely nothing to do with "checking the integrity of the voting process" and everything to do with "what can I do to try and make Hillary win". The selection of states that she filed for a recount in makes that abundantly clear.
What can I do to try and make Hillary win?*
*If she lost due to electoral fraud, because that's kind of an important thing.
If she's worried that electoral fraud changed the outcome of the election, and has a limited budget to investigate, it doesn't seem that unusual to me that she'd investigate the states that were actually in play, as opposed to safe states.
FPTP:
Trump: 1,000
Clinton: 975
Stein: 50
Are Stein and Clinton voters forfeiting their vote?
Preferential (amended to include Stein/- voters):
Trump/- : 1,000
Clinton/- : 500
Clinton/Stein: 475
Stein/Clinton: 40
Stein/- : 10
Round 1: Trump 1,000; Clinton 975; Stein 50
Stein/Clinton voters switch to Clinton
Round 2: Trump 1,000; Clinton 1,015
Are Stein/- voters throwing away their vote any more than FPTP-Stein voters?
I guess where I'm having the disconnect is where you talk about votes being thrown away after each round of voting. To me, it appears that in FPTP, there's one round of voting and ALL the non-winning-candidate votes are thrown away. Anyone who doesn't want one of the major candidates to win has exactly the option they have under FPTP, which is Candidate/-. Or even ranking all the non-dominant candidates, and not the dominant candidates, so they have a _better_ chance of preventing one of the dominant candidates from winning.
To start with, you have the same voting options as you do in the current FPTP system (Trump/-, Clinton/-, Stein/-), but you also have the option of expressing a second preference (Trump/Clinton/-, Trump/Stein/-, Clinton/Trump/-, Clinton/Stein/-, Stein/Clinton/-, Stein/Trump/-) or a third preference (though I think the third preference isn't strictly relevant in an election with three candidates).
Preferential voting just means that - if your preferred candidate doesn't win - you can effectively vote in a run-off between the remaining candidates. If you choose to do so! You don't have to! You're not saying anyone who doesn't want either of the two main parties doesn't get a vote, because you can vote third party (in our example, Stein/- is still an option).
So we have:
Scenario A:
Trump: 1,000
Clinton: 975
Stein: 50
Trump wins with a plurality. In your interpretation, the Stein votes count here.
Scenario B:
Trump/- : 1,000
Clinton/- : 500
Clinton/Stein: 475
Stein/Clinton: 50
In Scenario B, the Stein/Clinton votes (as Stein doesn't win) shift to Clinton; Clinton then wins with a majority. I would argue that the Stein/Clinton votes actually do count in this scenario. Their vote said: "I want Stein, but I would rather Clinton win than Trump." The system said "Stein has insufficient votes for victory, but you can use your vote to sway the Trump/Clinton decision." And that's what happened. They might not have gotten Stein, but their vote was Stein/Clinton, and not just Stein (if those 50 had voted Stein/-, rather than Stein/Clinton, Trump would have won). Why do their votes count any less than under Scenario A?
This has resulted in 'minor' parties (i.e. not one of the big two) getting reasonable numbers of seats (15-30% of the total) in parliament.
The fear with this system (Mixed Member Proportional, MMP) is that a minor party will control the balance of power, and extort disproportionate concessions in exchange for its support. So far this has not happened; the major parties have balanced the interests of minor parties against each other, and against their own. In theory, should the minor parties want too much in return for their votes, the two major parties could ally instead. This has yet to happen, but would be an interesting outcome, given their historical enmity.
From the little you've said, it's a pretty big leap from 'funds groups that aren't in lockstep with the monolithic Right' to 'is the puppet of a particular wealthy man'.
For some reason, people seem concerned that the President and his administration are willing to lie to the people they govern in the face of blatant proof to the contrary, and over something so trivial.
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
I wonder if part of the issue is that the internet throws the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides into harsh relief. In US nomenclature, I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal, but have had civil discussions here and elsewhere with conservatives. But when each group sees the worst of the other (and people do hunt for that worst, so that they can fire up their group), they get angry and afraid, which brings out more of that worst, eventually leading to the kind of polarisation you discuss.
*If she lost due to electoral fraud, because that's kind of an important thing.
If she's worried that electoral fraud changed the outcome of the election, and has a limited budget to investigate, it doesn't seem that unusual to me that she'd investigate the states that were actually in play, as opposed to safe states.