2016 USA Presidential poll for LTTforums

[NavyCuda]

Just now, GBELILREESE said:

WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL AROUND CANADA NEXT!

I would prefer not!  I miss the days when we could cross the boarder without having our identification checked.  Having to cross with a passport now is bullshit.

[SteveGrabowski0]

16 minutes ago, LordXenu said:

LOL spoken like a true HillShill

 

You didn't answer my question, because you can't. You want illegals and dead people to vote 20 or 30 times each, voter id laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, end of story. 

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Are my comments too racist or something? That is your goto right, the race card?

your dead grandpa voted 20-30 times, you must be one of those retard Breitbart readers

[SteveGrabowski0]

18 minutes ago, LordXenu said:

LOL spoken like a true HillShill

 

You didn't answer my question, because you can't. You want illegals and dead people to vote 20 or 30 times each, voter id laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, end of story. 

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Are my comments too racist or something? That is your goto right, the race card?

But yeah, it's fucking obvious racism to people who aren't Drudge readers. LOL your party bringing Jim Crow back.

 

 

[LordXenu]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

But yeah, it's fucking obvious racism to people who aren't Drudge readers. 

 

 

No, no it isn't. Like I said before, any US citizen that wants an ID for voting can get one free in voter ID states. This helps ensure a fair election for everyone, including poor minorities. 

 

>ITS THE CURRENT YEAR

 

http://imgur.com/a/4nOGe

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, LordXenu said:

No, no it isn't. Like I said before, any US citizen that wants an ID for voting can get one free in voter ID states. This helps ensure a fair election for everyone, including poor minorities. 

 

>ITS THE CURRENT YEAR

 

http://imgur.com/a/4nOGe

LOL your dead grandfather voting 10-20 times every election. Get the fuck out of here you lying piece of shit.

[LordXenu]

18 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

LOL your dead grandfather voting 10-20 times every election. Get the fuck out of here you lying piece of shit.

I repeat a joke thats been told literally millions of times and I'm lying, you lie by saying that voter ID laws are racist (you still can't back it up can you?) and you've suddenly won the argument by posting a fake news video?

Thank you for correcting the record, one dollar has been deposited into your account.

 

http://imgur.com/a/yXtsw

[LordXenu]

I tried to buy beer the other day and the clerk asked to see my ID.

 

I punched that racist in the face.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, LordXenu said:

I repeat a joke that been told literally millions of times and I'm lying, you lie by saying that voter ID laws are racist (you still can't back it up can you?) and you've suddenly won the argument by posting a fake news video.

Thank you for correcting the record, one dollar has been deposited into your account.

 

http://imgur.com/a/yXtsw

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

The ‘smoking gun’ proving North Carolina Republicans tried to disenfranchise black voters

By Christopher Ingraham July 29 

Today, a federal court struck down North Carolina's voter-ID law, one of the strictest in the nation. In addition to requiring residents to show identification before they can cast a ballot, the law also eliminated same-day voter registration, eliminated seven days of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The federal court ruling reinstates these provisions, for now.

 

Supporters of the law, like North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, have long maintained that requirements like these were necessary to prevent voter fraud. But time and time again, scholars and legal experts have found that the type of fraud these laws are meant to combat is largely nonexistent.

 

One of the most comprehensive studies on the subject found only 31 individual cases of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast in the United States since the year 2000. Researchers have found that reports of voter fraud are roughly as common as reports of alien abduction.

 

The federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina's wasn't to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions "target African Americans with almost surgical precision."

 

In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. "This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)," the judges wrote.

 

So the legislators made it so that the only acceptable forms of voter identification were the ones disproportionately used by white people. "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans," the judges wrote. "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess."

 

The data also showed that black voters were more likely to make use of early voting — particularly the first seven days out of North Carolina's 17-day voting period. So lawmakers eliminated these seven days of voting. "After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days," the court found.

 

Most strikingly, the judges point to a "smoking gun" in North Carolina's justification for the law, proving discriminatory intent. The state argued in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic," and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result.

 

"Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise," the judges write in their decision.

This is about as clear-cut an indictment of the discriminatory underpinnings of voter-ID laws as you'll find anywhere. Studies have already shown a significant link between support for voter ID and racial discrimination, among both lawmakers and white voters in general.

 

"Faced with this record," the federal court concludes, "we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent."

 

In a statement, Governor Pat McCrory said that "photo IDs are required to purchase Sudafed, cash a check, board an airplane or enter a federal court room. Yet, three Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while also maligning our state. We will immediately appeal and also review other potential options."

[LordXenu]

Washington post

 

I'm not even gonna read it. Opinion discarded.

 

e: I lied, I skimmed it. My god it's dumber than I thought.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, LordXenu said:

Washington post

 

I'm not even gonna read it. Opinion discarded.

Of course you weren't going to read it, it didn't come from Drudge or NY Post

[LordXenu]

I'm going to CORRECT THE RECORD

 

I'm not republican, I've never read the druge thingy or the ny post.

 

So keep up those ad hominem attacks.

 

B-B-But, it's the......CURRENT YEAR!!!!!!!

[SteveGrabowski0]

Sure you're not

[skywake]

9 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

It is not wasting your vote. Simply because you don't necessarily need to have your desired outcome to make a difference. This is a very common issue I see among most people but particularly among Americans: they devolve into 100% pragmatism about politics and related issues.

In a FPTP system you have to be pragmatic. Look at the above poll as an example. If LTT was a state Trump would have won. Simple as that. If you voted for one of the third party candidates and think that Hillary is the least worst? You're enabling that. There's no re-count. If Trump wins it'll be because third party voters weren't more pragmatic. You don't have the luxury of sending a message in the general election. Use the mid-terms or the primaries for that.

 

Now in Australia we have preferential voting. I can vote for third parties and still have my vote count for the real contest. There were 17/150 seats in the last Australian election that were "non-classic divisions", where it wasn't the two major parties fighting it out. In most seats the third party is unlikely to finish in the last two let alone win. But your vote will still count. In the US you don't have that luxury. You have to look at the polls and pick between the viable parties or have your vote not count. This year there are only two parties.

 

edit:

Oh, and Australia also has compulsory voting. No voter ID laws either for the most part. Yet more reasons why the US system is shit

[imreloadin]

6 minutes ago, skywake said:

In a FPTP system you have to be pragmatic. Look at the above poll as an example. If LTT was a state Trump would have won. Simple as that. If you voted for one of the third party candidates and think that Hillary is the least worst? You're enabling that. There's no re-count. If Trump wins it'll be because third party voters weren't more pragmatic. You don't have the luxury of sending a message in the general election. Use the mid-terms or the primaries for that.

 

Now in Australia we have preferential voting. I can vote for third parties and still have my vote count for the real contest. There were 17/150 seats in the last Australian election that were "non-classic divisions", where it wasn't the two major parties fighting it out. In most seats the third party is unlikely to finish in the last two let alone win. But your vote will still count. In the US you don't have that luxury. You have to look at the polls and pick between the viable parties or have your vote not count. This year there are only two parties.

 

edit:

Oh, and Australia also has compulsory voting. No voter ID laws either for the most part. Yet more reasons why the US system is shit

What does FPTP stand for?

[Arc_Jester]

9 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

What does FPTP stand for?

First Past the Post

 

i agree with skywake, the American system is indeed shit although the FPTP system isn't without it's flaws. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

What does FPTP stand for?

First Past The Post. It's an electoral system by which the mass of voters is divided into constituencies, and each constituency gets one representative. Whoever wins in that constituency gets the representative, the rest gets zero. That means that winning with 50.0001% of the votes is the same as winning with 99.999%, and the number of constituencies you win at is more important than the aggregate share of votes you get (for example, Bush won the 2000 election while receiving less votes than Gore due to this - since the US President is chosen by an electoral college, which in turn is formed using the FPTP system).

 

To give an example: if the State of New York had 100 representatives allocated according to vote share, you could have a party with 50, another with 30, and a third one with 20, etc. But if you slice it into 100 constituencies, and in each of them the percentages are 50, 30, 20, the first party will get 100 representative, and the rest zero. That's why FPTP systems encourage party 3 voters to vote for party 2 in constituencies where the election is closer between 1 and 2 if they really dislike party 1.

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, skywake said:

In a FPTP system you have to be pragmatic. Look at the above poll as an example. If LTT was a state Trump would have won. Simple as that. If you voted for one of the third party candidates and think that Hillary is the least worst? You're enabling that. There's no re-count. If Trump wins it'll be because third party voters weren't more pragmatic. You don't have the luxury of sending a message in the general election. Use the mid-terms or the primaries for that.

Ok let's look at your worst case scenario: Trump wins.

 

What is he going to do, realistically? He might fuck up a few diplomacy situations but that's mostly up to his ambassadors. He could try to go nuts with executive orders and veto powers but that would likely generate so much backlash he'd be run out of office, impeached, etc. Silly wars? Nah he has to go through congress for that.

 

He would probably appoint someone you don't approve to replace Scalia to the SCOTUS. That's one vote though the rest would need to literally die before he can really tip the balance of the SCOTUS.

 

So is there really a huge cause for concern for either Trump or Hillary winning? Or are you just repeating the narrative that both are so desperate to push: Vote for me otherwise the Racist/Criminal wins (pick your poison).

 

From an outsider's perspective there's very little actual difference in the outcome of either becoming President and you're all being led to believe through intimidation, fear and panic tactics that this is too much of a crucial decision and that you have to be pragmatic.

 

Truth is you really don't need to, it's just in the best interest of the current parties for you to keep having this mentality cause they literally make their living by enforcing the status quo.

[SurvivorNVL]

This thread is cancer.  I'll correct the record:  Mexico should be annexed.  Canada should be annexed.  French Canada can remain as it is, because it's the only part of Canada with culture and an actual people.  The Middle East should remain in the hands of: Russia, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan's leaders - the gulf-states should be burned with their oil.  Israel should be sealed off from the rest of the world and China and Japan need to annex the Korea's as well as establish total control over Australia and New Zealand.  Philippines can take Singapore and Malaysia for the glory of Duterte. The Latin American countries need to fix their democracy by getting rid of it, given the laziness of the populace and establish a continent wide military Junta, except in the new state of Southern Brazil.  Them and Chile are okay.

Africa can remain as it is.  Nobody really cares what they do.  China will take them eventually.

These two will rule Europe and the Annexed-United States of America.  



Also we'll bomb Belgium.  

[SteveGrabowski0]

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok let's look at your worst case scenario: Trump wins.

 

What is he going to do, realistically? He might fuck up a few diplomacy situations but that's mostly up to his ambassadors. He could try to go nuts with executive orders and veto powers but that would likely generate so much backlash he'd be run out of office, impeached, etc. Silly wars? Nah he has to go through congress for that.

 

He would probably appoint someone you don't approve to replace Scalia to the SCOTUS. That's one vote though the rest would need to literally die before he can really tip the balance of the SCOTUS.

 

So is there really a huge cause for concern for either Trump or Hillary winning? Or are you just repeating the narrative that both are so desperate to push: Vote for me otherwise the Racist/Criminal wins (pick your poison).

 

From an outsider's perspective there's very little actual difference in the outcome of either becoming President and you're all being led to believe through intimidation, fear and panic tactics that this is too much of a crucial decision and that you have to be pragmatic.

 

Truth is you really don't need to, it's just in the best interest of the current parties for you to keep having this mentality cause they literally make their living by enforcing the status quo.

What he'll do realistically is pretty much whatever he wants, because his party will have the house and senate. Trump getting elected assures Republican control of the executive, both houses of congress, the supreme court, as well as most state governments. At least with Clinton you'd have some checks and balances with a republican house, while the senate is still pretty much a coin toss even factoring in Clinton's big lead right now.

 

Also whoever wins this election will likely appoint two justices, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg can't have long left. Maybe even three since Clarence Thomas has said he's not going to be a lifer on the court.

[szomeret]

I dislike Hillary and Trump. But Stein's the worst. I think I'll vote for Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson. I rather not be involved in the mess anyhow. His ignorance, hopefully, will encourage non-action. 

[skywake]

24 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

First Past The Post. It's an electoral system by which the mass of voters is divided into constituencies, and each constituency gets one representative. Whoever wins in that constituency gets the representative, the rest gets zero. That means that winning with 50.0001% of the votes is the same as winning with 99.999%, and the number of constituencies you win at is more important than the aggregate share of votes you get

No, that's not what it means. I'll use an example to explain. Here are the votes from one of the contests in the last Australian election:

 

Melbourne Ports:

Liberal Party: 42%

Labor Party: 27%

The Greens: 24%

Other parties: 0.5-2% each

 

In a FPTP voting system the Liberal Party would win because they have the most votes. And you might be thinking "well fair enough" but consider this. Who would Green voters actually prefer? Should the Liberal party be winning that seat? If it was a FPTP system those Greens voters would be doing nothing but making it harder for the ALP to win. The party that their preffered party is closer to. So what happens in the Australian system is you ask all voters to rank candidates from their most preferred to least. When counting you then drop the least popular candidate and move that vote to their next preference. So this is what happened in Melbourne Ports in the last two counts:

 

Melbourne Ports, 5th count:

Liberal Party: 44%

Labor Party: 29%

The Greens: 27% -> Excluded, preferences distributed according to voter ballots

 

Melbourne Ports, 6th count:

Liberal Party: 49%

Labor Party: 51% -> Elected

 

Third party voters did not like the Liberal Party. Their preferences flowed heavily to the ALP. Which meant the ALP went from well behind to a narrow win. Apply that sort of system to the US voting system. What if people supporting Stein or Johnson could also state who they preferred between Trump and Clinton? Would that not be a fairer system? How many people are NOT voting for third parties because they know their vote won't count?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

19 minutes ago, skywake said:

No, that's not what it means. I'll use an example to explain. Here are the votes from one of the contests in the last Australian election:

 

Can you explain how anything you said contradicts the definition of FPTP I gave him?

[Weak1ings]

Glad to see this pool has gotten somewhere!  Please share it with other people, I wish as many people as possible to vote in the poll!

[skywake]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Can you explain how anything you said contradicts the definition of FPTP I gave him?

Nothing you said actually defined FPTP. What you said is also true of other voting systems that are entirely different to FPTP. With an Alternative Vote or Preferential Voting system? If you get 50.00001% of the primary votes you win the electorate. It's the same result you'd get if you had near-100% support. This isn't the thing that's different about FPTP.

 

What makes FPTP different is that in examples like this:
Liberal Party: 42% <- Winner in FPTP
Labor Party: 27%
The Greens: 24%
Other parties: 0.5-2% each

 

FPTP would give it to the Liberal Party then and there. While an AV system went to preferences and said this:

Liberal Party: 49%
Labor Party: 51% <- Winner in AV

 

And a proportional system, like STV, would do something like this:

Liberal Party: 42% <- 3/6 Seats
Labor Party: 27% <- 2/6 Seats
The Greens: 24% <- 1/6 Seats
Other parties: 0.5-2% each  <- 0/6 Seats

 

You didn't contradict anything but you didn't explain FPTP either. At all. In most systems if you get more than 50% of the primary vote you will win. That's not always ideal but it's hard to say it's not fair. The issue with FPTP isn't that. The issue is that if three parties get ~30%? It's a lottery who wins. Even if two of those parties are fairly similar.

[skywake]

Another example, take the poll above that this thread was created for. With FPTP Trump would win with those numbers. But depending on where the preferences split? The result could be different with preferential voting. So we start with the result as it is above:

 

Trump: 45% <- Winner under FPTP
Clinton: 39%
Johnson: 11%
Stein: 3%
Keniston: 2%

 

If the third party vote split 50:50? This would be the result with AV:

Trump: 53%  <- Winner under AV

Clinton: 47%

 

If the third party vote lent towards one candidate over another? Say Clinton 70% vs 30% to Trump?

Trump: 49.8%

Clinton: 50.2%  <- Winner under AV

 

And if it was STV with lets say a pool of 12 delegates

Trump: 6 delegates

Clinton 5 delegates

Johnson: 1 delegate