Forum Members *~*~*~*~Official Pre-Allo Social Thread~*~*~*~*

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Cyberdyne 101 said:
They still sound amazing. I'm worried about Lars though. I don't think he'll be able to keep up for much longer.
Click to expand...
lol does he have arthritis or some shii?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Lawper said:
@JoaoMoutinho bump!

20150122.png
Click to expand...
Something something marginal benefits exceed the marginal costs something something
 
Members don't see this ad :)
gonnif said:
He wont last but I hope our institutions survive and our reputation as a free and open society with the rule of law, especially for our leaders, can be recovered. Its amazing that he promisef to make America Great Again and he has made us worse in every way possible
Click to expand...

One way is to abolish the Electoral College to prevent this from happening. Another is to do whatever happened after Watergate Scandal in 1970s. Just wait for a charismatic and positive candidate to pop up and elect them by a landslide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
@Goro @gonnif bad news. i have to renege on my prior bet that Trump will last all the way till 2025. I don't think he's going to make it past this year the way things are going. gonnif's signature defeated me :hungover::dead:
Click to expand...
You know things are bad when the staid NY Times literally writes about Der Trumppenfuhrer "his shoot from the hip into foot tendencies"...the NYT making a joke????!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lawper said:
One way is to abolish the Electoral College to prevent this from happening. Another is to do whatever happened after Watergate Scandal in 1970s. Just wait for a charismatic and positive candidate to pop up and elect them by a landslide.
Click to expand...

Yes and to let two states elect the leader for the entire country. Fabulous idea.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
I was being hyperbolic. I do agree that the electoral college is crap, but a purely popular vote also has big problems.
Click to expand...

the purely popular vote is far better than the electoral college. it's not perfect but it's a much better solution and that should be the priority. voting systems can be improved using various methods from game theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
the purely popular vote is far better than the electoral college. it's not perfect but it's a much better solution and that should be the priority. voting systems can be improved using various methods from game theory.
Click to expand...

A purely popular vote is great if you don't mind regional voting dominating the national vote. I prefer to make sure everyone gets a say. Which is why I also don't like the electoral college.

An improved version of the popular vote would be ideal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
A purely popular vote is great if you don't mind regional voting dominating the national vote. I prefer to make sure everyone gets a say. Which is why I also don't like the electoral college.

An improved version of the popular vote would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Everyone gets a say in the popular vote. Their votes are all counted equally and it's mathematically impossible to rely only on the most populous areas to win the presidency (see the video as to why that is). It's the stuff like winner take all and other nonsense that's making the electoral systems a lot worse. Something like a proportional vote, ranked choice or similar will improve the electoral quality.

Or we can ditch the current presidential system and just adopt a parliament. Regardless, the electoral college is crap and should be abolished. That's the main focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
Everyone gets a say in the popular vote. Their votes are all counted equally and it's mathematically impossible to rely only on the most populous areas to win the presidency (see the video as to why that is). It's the stuff like winner take all and other nonsense that's making the electoral systems a lot worse. Something like a proportional vote, ranked choice or similar will improve the electoral quality.
Click to expand...

You scooped me on WTA. I was about to edit my post to clarify that my main issue with the EC is the winner-takes-all system.

Also, have you talked to American voters? I'd wager that the majority of voters in this country do not cast informed votes. A purely popular vote would be great if everyone had a say based on an informed opinion, but that doesn't happen.

Or we can ditch the current presidential system and just adopt a parliament. Regardless, the electoral college is crap and should be abolished. That's the main focus.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's mostly crap, but I still won't support a purely popular vote until the number of ignorant voters is a small minority. But you're in good company. Jefferson called the electoral college the "most dangerous blot on our Constitution."
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
You scooped me on WTA. I was about to edit my post to clarify that my main issue with the EC is the winner-takes-all system.

Also, have you talked to American voters? I'd wager that the majority of voters in this country do not cast informed votes. A purely popular vote would be great if everyone had a say based on an informed opinion, but that doesn't happen.



Yeah. It's mostly crap, but I still won't support a purely popular vote until the number of ignorant voters is a small minority. But you're in good company. Jefferson called the electoral college the "most dangerous blot on our Constitution."
Click to expand...

Lack of information and ignorance are a problem for any electoral system regardless of how the voting is done. That isn't unique to purely popular vote (and the problem is worsened by electoral college where ignorant people in crucial swing states suddenly have a major sway in elections). If anything, a switch to a purely popular vote would encourage people to be more informed as they feel they aren't tossing their votes away to some candidate based on what their states traditionally prefer.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
You scooped me on WTA. I was about to edit my post to clarify that my main issue with the EC is the winner-takes-all system.

Also, have you talked to American voters? I'd wager that the majority of voters in this country do not cast informed votes. A purely popular vote would be great if everyone had a say based on an informed opinion, but that doesn't happen.



Yeah. It's mostly crap, but I still won't support a purely popular vote until the number of ignorant voters is a small minority. But you're in good company. Jefferson called the electoral college the "most dangerous blot on our Constitution."
Click to expand...

I think the lack of voter turnout is a larger problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Examples where electoral vote defeated popular vote:

1824 - John Quincy Adams. Total disaster. He won the election in a highly controversial manner (where instead Andrew Jackson should've won) and he made one of his opponents Henry Clay his secretary of state. This so-called corrupt bargain angered Jackson and his supporters, and they broke away to form the Democratic Party. Jackson destroyed Adams in the 1828 election.

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes. Another total disaster. Samuel Tilden handily won the popular vote and the resolution was the end of the Reconstruction Era that basically disenfranchised newly freed slaves... 12 years after the end of the American Civil War. Horrible horrible outcome. It took nearly a century later to restore the Reconstruction reforms in the Civil Rights Era.

1888 - Benjamin Harrison. This is weird because he defeated the incumbent Grover Cleveland who won the popular vote. Election politics focused on tariffs (history repeats itself go figure), and Cleveland lost the electoral votes in his home state of New York because of the corrupt Tammany Hall. Harrison was an ineffective president and lost to Cleveland in 1892 election.

2000 - George W. Bush. Controversial victory based on voting in Florida. Totally biased and controversial decision made by the Supreme Court. Bush went on to become one of the worst presidents in recent history.

2016 - Donald Trump. Technically he handily defeated Hillary Clinton on both popular and electoral votes on election night and Clinton conceded defeat before the final votes were counted. It was actually the least controversial election in the list although there were several faithless electors involved.

Each of these elections favored a Republican (or Republican-leaning) candidate, and the president who won the electoral vote over popular vote is almost surely unpopular and ends up with embarrassing outcomes (defeated in reelection, stopping essential social reforms, crashing the economy, destroying institutions etc.).
 
The EC doesn't end up equalizing votes. A voter in Wyoming have 3.6 X the voting power of a voter in California. That makes no sense. Everyone should have equal voting power, imo. Plus, if we ditch the EC, we give voters in biased states power back. A Republican vote in California or Massachusetts would actually matter/a Democrat vote in Utah would actually matter if we got rid of it. I'm not a huge fan of First Past the Post but it sure is better than our wacky system. Personally, I'm a fan of the French system and I would love it if we implemented a Two Round Voting system.

Also the arguments for the EC always seem to hinge on California. While they certainly are a solid blue state, they certainly have Republicans and it's not like the entire state is going to vote Democrat. Not everyone in one state is the same, especially in a state as big as California. There are farmers, hollywood stars, doctors, and mechanics. States are diverse, and in many ways the EC prevents this diversity from being heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
Lack of information and ignorance are a problem for any electoral system regardless of how the voting is done. That isn't unique to purely popular vote (and the problem is worsened by electoral college where ignorant people in crucial swing states suddenly have a major sway in elections). If anything, a switch to a purely popular vote would encourage people to be more informed as they feel they aren't tossing their votes away to some candidate based on what their states traditionally prefer.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the EC doesn't help with this (again, I've said like three times now that I dislike the EC so I'm not sure why you keep arguing against it when discussing the popular vote), I strongly disagree that switching to a popular vote will fix this.

There are definitely a number of non-voters who would likely vote in a popular vote since their vote would actually count for something, but that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the voters who vote dem/rep every election regardless of who the candidates are--the people who would vote for the reanimate corpse of the Boston Strangler just because he's a democrat. And don't tell me these people don't exist and aren't a huge number. That's just ignorant.

I'm also talking about the people who get their opinions directly from the news and do absolutely no reading of their own.

People who believe vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are dangerous, and that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy.

These are people who shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't voting for who they logically believe is the best candidate. They're voting based on conspiracies, ridiculous propaganda, or strictly along the party line.

Cyberdyne 101 said:
I think the lack of voter turnout is a larger problem.
Click to expand...

I don't. It is definitely a problem that can be addressed by getting rid of the EC, but the enormous number of ****ty voters scares me more than the lack of turnout.

Lawper said:
Examples where electoral vote defeated popular vote:

1824 - John Quincy Adams. Total disaster. He won the election in a highly controversial manner (where instead Andrew Jackson should've won) and he made one of his opponents Henry Clay his secretary of state. This so-called corrupt bargain angered Jackson and his supporters, and they broke away to form the Democratic Party. Jackson destroyed Adams in the 1828 election.

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes. Another total disaster. Samuel Tilden handily won the popular vote and the resolution was the end of the Reconstruction Era that basically disenfranchised newly freed slaves... 12 years after the end of the American Civil War. Horrible horrible outcome. It took nearly a century later to restore the Reconstruction reforms in the Civil Rights Era.

1888 - Benjamin Harrison. This is weird because he defeated the incumbent Grover Cleveland who won the popular vote. Election politics focused on tariffs (history repeats itself go figure), and Cleveland lost the electoral votes in his home state of New York because of the corrupt Tammany Hall. Harrison was an ineffective president and lost to Cleveland in 1892 election.

2000 - George W. Bush. Controversial victory based on voting in Florida. Totally biased and controversial decision made by the Supreme Court. Bush went on to become one of the worst presidents in recent history.

2016 - Donald Trump. Technically he handily defeated Hillary Clinton on both popular and electoral votes on election night and Clinton conceded defeat before the final votes were counted. It was actually the least controversial election in the list although there were several faithless electors involved.

Each of these elections favored a Republican (or Republican-leaning) candidate, and the president who won the electoral vote over popular vote is almost surely unpopular and ends up with embarrassing outcomes (defeated in reelection, stopping essential social reforms, crashing the economy, destroying institutions etc.).
Click to expand...

What's your point?

tessellations said:
The EC doesn't end up equalizing votes. A voter in Wyoming have 3.6 X the voting power of a voter in California. That makes no sense. Everyone should have equal voting power, imo. Plus, if we ditch the EC, we give voters in biased states power back. A Republican vote in California or Massachusetts would actually matter/a Democrat vote in Utah would actually matter if we got rid of it. I'm not a huge fan of First Past the Post but it sure is better than our wacky system. Personally, I'm a fan of the French system and I would love it if we implemented a Two Round Voting system.

Also the arguments for the EC always seem to hinge on California. While they certainly are a solid blue state, they certainly have Republicans and it's not like the entire state is going to vote Democrat. Not everyone in one state is the same, especially in a state as big as California. There are farmers, hollywood stars, doctors, and mechanics. States are diverse, and in many ways the EC prevents this diversity from being heard.
Click to expand...

Agree that the EC is absurd. I read an interesting paper on voter power in the EC. I'll have to find it.

But it's really just not true that a purely popular vote would give everyone equal power. It does in theory where everyone makes an informed decision and votes based on their own informed opinions, but in practice that's just not how things work.

In a perfect world, we'd have a purely democratic vote where my vote would matter just as much as anyone else's. But in reality, people don't work that way. Regional biases are real and cause voters to go certain ways even with the EC in place (which is partly why it was created). You can get into game theory if you want, but it's pretty easy to see that people are more likely to vote a certain way if they perceive everyone around them as voting that way, popular vote or not.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
While I agree that the EC doesn't help with this (again, I've said like three times now that I dislike the EC so I'm not sure why you keep arguing against it when discussing the popular vote), I strongly disagree that switching to a popular vote will fix this.

There are definitely a number of non-voters who would likely vote in a popular vote since their vote would actually count for something, but that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the voters who vote dem/rep every election regardless of who the candidates are--the people who would vote for the reanimate corpse of the Boston Strangler just because he's a democrat. And don't tell me these people don't exist and aren't a huge number. That's just ignorant.

I'm also talking about the people who get their opinions directly from the news and do absolutely no reading of their own.

People who believe vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are dangerous, and that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy.

These are people who shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't voting for who they logically believe is the best candidate. They're voting based on conspiracies, ridiculous propaganda, or strictly along the party line.



I don't. It is definitely a problem that can be addressed by getting rid of the EC, but the enormous number of ****ty voters scares me more than the lack of turnout.



What's your point?



Agree that the EC is absurd. I read an interesting paper on voter power in the EC. I'll have to find it.

But it's really just not true that a purely popular vote would give everyone equal power. It does in theory where everyone makes an informed decision and votes based on their own informed opinions, but in practice that's just not how things work.

In a perfect world, we'd have a purely democratic vote where my vote would matter just as much as anyone else's. But in reality, people don't work that way. Regional biases are real and cause voters to go certain ways even with the EC in place (which is partly why it was created). You can get into game theory if you want, but it's pretty easy to see that people are more likely to vote a certain way if they perceive everyone around them as voting that way, popular vote or not.
Click to expand...

The point is presidents elected by electoral vote but lose popular vote are unpopular.

We are talking past each other. Electoral systems have problems because of reality of situation, and the focus is to minimize problems as much as possible. The stuff on voter ignorance, lack on information, misinformation, wasted votes etc. is a problem for any electoral system and is a topic of voter psychology.

I'm not saying a purely popular vote is a perfect solution. I'm saying it's a far superior solution to the electoral college, which you agreed. Rejecting the better alternative for an ideal optimal alternative is a bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
The point is presidents elected by electoral vote but lose popular vote are unpopular.

We are talking past each other. Electoral systems have problems because of reality of situation, and the focus is to minimize problems as much as possible. The stuff on voter ignorance, lack on information, misinformation, wasted votes etc. is a problem for any electoral system and is a topic of voter psychology.

I'm not saying a purely popular vote is a perfect solution. I'm saying it's a far superior solution to the electoral college, which you agreed. Rejecting the better alternative for an ideal optimal alternative is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

We're not talking past each other. I just disagree that getting rid of the electoral college is the way to go. I agree that a popular vote is the ideal, but I don't agree that just getting rid of the electoral college is the way to go.

We don't have to wait until it's ideal. But we need to have at least a better solution in place before we just go and get rid of the EC.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
We're not talking past each other. I just disagree that getting rid of the electoral college is the way to go. I agree that a popular vote is the ideal, but I don't agree that just getting rid of the electoral college is the way to go.

We don't have to wait until it's ideal. But we need to have at least a better solution in place before we just go and get rid of the EC.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of the Electoral College almost surely leads to better outcomes. There is no reason to stick with the existing system that is undemocratic and mathematically ludicrous when a simpler and more effective alternative exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
Getting rid of the Electoral College almost surely leads to better outcomes. There is no reason to stick with the existing system that is undemocratic and mathematically ludicrous when a simpler and more effective alternative exists.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting ditching the current flawed system for more flaws. At least the current system attempts to control for voter ignorance and stupidity. I'd be thrilled with a popular vote if a majority of voters weren't brainwashed or ignorant (and no, that's not a euphemism for voting my way).

We need to increase voter education and incentivize people to make informed decisions. Moving to a popular vote is a great idea, but if we just abolish the EC straight away, we'll be left with the issues I mentioned earlier.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
You're suggesting ditching the current flawed system for more flaws. At least the current system attempts to control for voter ignorance and stupidity. I'd be thrilled with a popular vote if a majority of voters weren't brainwashed or ignorant (and no, that's not a euphemism for voting my way).

We need to increase voter education and incentivize people to make informed decisions. Moving to a popular vote is a great idea, but if we just abolish the EC straight away, we'll be left with the issues I mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

No i'm suggesting the exact opposite: ditching the flawed system for one that has a lot fewer flaws. You can win elections by winning states that comprise 22% of the popular vote. Political ads target people in crucial swing states and campaigns aim to brainwash them heavily (this is why voters in rural parts of swing states came to polls in large numbers as they got brainwashed by Trump's rhetoric). Winner take alls make states red/blue even if states are nearly evenly split politically.

I support voter education since increasing voter turnout and encouraging independent thinking is essential for democratic success. But the electoral college prioritizes states over people and does so in a spectacularly absurd fashion. Getting rid of electoral college while also educating voters the importance of making a sound decision is a best possible transition.

Many voters are stupid and believe that the electoral college is democratic. Math goes above their heads and they think whatever the framers of the constitution said must be right. The voters opposing this transition usually don't think of alternatives and make ignorant arguments. So voter education is required anyways for the transition to happen
 
Lawper said:
Getting rid of the Electoral College almost surely leads to better outcomes. There is no reason to stick with the existing system that is undemocratic and mathematically ludicrous when a simpler and more effective alternative exists.
Click to expand...
I'll bite on this one: we're not supposed to be living in a democracy. I don't support the EC, I'm just saying that that is probably the best reason for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet (theres a lot to read), but I don't buy into the whole idea that without the EC a different candidate would have won. Candidates would have campaigned way differently and had different strategies. Theres a difference between targeting specific states and the general population as a whole. So IMO, no one can predict what would have happened with a popular vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
tarheelpenner said:
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet (theres a lot to read), but I don't buy into the whole idea that without the EC a different candidate would have won. Candidates would have campaigned way differently and had different strategies. Theres a difference between targeting specific states and the general population as a whole. So IMO, no one can predict what would have happened with a popular vote.
Click to expand...
That's somewhat true, we're all talking tea leaves
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
tarheelpenner said:
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet (theres a lot to read), but I don't buy into the whole idea that without the EC a different candidate would have won. Candidates would have campaigned way differently and had different strategies. Theres a difference between targeting specific states and the general population as a whole. So IMO, no one can predict what would have happened with a popular vote.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is true. I just want to get rid of the EC. It's a stupid and outdated system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
Yeah this is true. I just want to get rid of the EC. It's a stupid and outdated system.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say stupid. It served it's purpose at the time it was relevant and was kind of an ingenious way to do things. It's definitely outdated though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
freak7 said:
1) Nice post number
2) Yeah maybe I should've said "direct democracy"
Click to expand...

Yeah but history goes to show that prioritizing people over states matters. That's why senators are elected directly by the people than state legislatures (as they once were). Having too many indirect processes involved can lead to corruption.

freak7 said:
I wouldn't say stupid. It served it's purpose at the time it was relevant and was kind of an ingenious way to do things. It's definitely outdated though.
Click to expand...

Andrew Jackson showed the system was idiotic back in 1824. And yet it was somehow retained. The rules are flawed and the mathematics behind it is ludicrous.
 
Lawper said:
Andrew Jackson showed the system was idiotic back in 1824. And yet it was somehow retained. The rules are flawed and the mathematics behind it is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly cite Andrew Jackson as words of wisdom, but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
I trust my $20

20dol21.jpg
Click to expand...

We're talking in circles now, which is why I try to avoid these debates.

But being on currency isn't a great benchmark. George Washington is on currency, and he owned a set of dentures made from slaves' teeth.

(But paying off the national debt is a pretty badass claim for Jackson.)
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
We're talking in circles now, which is why I try to avoid these debates.

But being on currency isn't a great benchmark. George Washington is on currency, and he owned a set of dentures made from slaves' teeth.
Click to expand...

my position on the matter is clear and direct. the electoral college is an absurdity that should be eliminated. the popular vote while imperfect is far superior. voter education is necessary and inevitable for the transition from electoral college to popular vote to happen.
 
Lawper said:
my position on the matter is clear and direct. the electoral college is an absurdity that should be eliminated. the popular vote while imperfect is far superior. voter education is necessary and inevitable for the transition from electoral college to popular vote to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last statement, but I don't agree that getting rid of the EC and going directly to a popular vote without doing significant voter education is a smart idea or good for the country.

Clearly we don't agree, so I don't really see the point in talking about it TBH.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
I agree with your last statement, but I don't agree that getting rid of the EC and going directly to a popular vote without doing significant voter education is a smart idea or good for the country.

Clearly we don't agree, so I don't really see the point in talking about it TBH.
Click to expand...

significant voter education is required for the transition to even happen because many voters who defend the electoral college are basing it on bizarre and absurd reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
significant voter education is required for the transition to even happen because many voters who defend the electoral college are basing it on bizarre and absurd reasons.
Click to expand...

If you think that's the main reason versus the huge swarth of completely ignorant and dopey voters, you're deluding yourself lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

gyngyn
Official Waitlist Manifestation Thread 2023!
2 3 4 5
Replies
246
Views
17K
Saxappeal1
S
chilly_md
  • Sticky
*~*~*~* Official AMCAS Questions Thread 2023-2024 *~*~*~*
2 3
Replies
139
Views
17K
wysdoc
wysdoc
wysdoc
  • Sticky
*~*~*~* Official TMDSAS Questions Thread 2023-2024 *~*~*~*
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
620
Views
66K
wysdoc
wysdoc
J
Official SHPEP 2023 Thread
2 3
Replies
100
Views
11K
MarieCho
M
gyngyn
Official Other Impactful Experience thread 2023/2024
Replies
4
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top