2016 USA Presidential poll for LTTforums

[SpaceGhostC2C]

21 minutes ago, skywake said:

(...)

I still don't understand. I never referred to alternative systems (other than to give a D'Hondt-style example). I never said what "the issue" is with it, or whether it's fair. I just literally gave the definition (i.e., the readout of FPTP), and explained it is a "winner takes it all" system. That's all I did.

You explained twice an alternative system, which is fine, but I really don't see why it changes what FPTP is.

 

Perhaps I should put it differently:

- it is a system where only the first place matters

- it is a system where the first place is adjudicated to whoever got more positive votes.

- it is a system where each voter awards exactly one positive vote (no ranks, negative votes, etc)

 

True or not? And isn't it all I said before? 

[skywake]

@SpaceGhostC2C

The issue with your explanation is that what you said initially also applies to other systems. With an AV system a party can win an overall election with fewer votes than their opponents, it happens almost by design with AV. There is still a "winner takes all" style result per-electorate. With AV if a candidate gets over 50% of the primary vote? They win the seat. And most of the time it is the party with the highest primary vote that wins. None of those are unique features of FPTP. These are issues still present in an AV system and AV doesn't try to fix any of those things.

 

The only thing that's unique about FPTP is that you only count primary votes. That the candidate with the most votes on the first count is the one that wins. That's the unique feature (and issue) with FPTP. Under FPTP a result that has 29% Party A, 31% Party B, 35% Party C and 5% other would call it as a win for Party C. Just like that. Every other voting system tries to take into account the views of people who voted for the other parties.

 

A proportional system would try to get Party A and B represented in parliament

A preferential system would ask which party supporters of losing parties would rather

FPTP does neither. That's the one and only defining feature of FPTP.

[AxeFire]

 

[Praesi]

Unbelievable so many People would vote for her. Cant you see that she is an Enemy of Freedom and Piece?

[Bsmith]

Just now, Praesi said:

Unbelievable so many People would vote for her. Cant you see that she is an Enemy of Freedom and Piece?

and what is trump then?
Sorry to say, but in my eyes he is exactly the same.

[Praesi]

25 minutes ago, Bsmith said:

and what is trump then?
Sorry to say, but in my eyes he is exactly the same.

Speechless....

[Misanthrope]

7 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

What he'll do realistically is pretty much whatever he wants, because his party will have the house and senate.

Half of his fucking party wants him to drop already.

 

Also you mention SCOTUS when afaik he can only remplace Scalia's post and change nothing in fact.

[SteveGrabowski0]

49 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Half of his fucking party wants him to drop already.

 

Also you mention SCOTUS when afaik he can only remplace Scalia's post and change nothing in fact.

Ginsburg is 83 and has fought cancer twice. I don't think the odds are great she makes it to 87. It's nuts you think elections don't matter. Even the one appointment to the supreme court changes it drastically considering how many cases were decided 5-4 when Scalia was alive. The court is incredible polarized with Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor reliable liberal votes and Thomas, Alito, and Roberts reliable conservative ones. Cases are often decided by Kennedy.

 

And his party only wants him out because they're scared his sexual assault remarks are going to drag other Republicans down further down the ballot in congressional and state races.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, Praesi said:

Unbelievable so many People would vote for her. Cant you see that she is an Enemy of Freedom and Piece?

Yeah let's just elect a fascist who would have complete control over the nation's government instead.

[Misanthrope]

30 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Ginsburg is 83 and has fought cancer twice. I don't think the odds are great she makes it to 87.

But we're still talking odds, not certainty.

 

Quote

It's nuts you think elections don't matter.

I don't think that. I just think compromising principles in favor of buying into either Clinton's or Trump's scare tactics has a bigger, overall consequence than the actual consequences of either of them getting to office. They don't become absolute dictator of the US yet they both act like that would be the case.

 

The point is simple yet you continue to try and find justifications and rationalization for why their scare tactics are valid, they're just not to me.

[SteveGrabowski0]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

But we're still talking odds, not certainty.

 

I don't think that. I just think compromising principles in favor of buying into either Clinton's or Trump's scare tactics has a bigger, overall consequence than the actual consequences of either of them getting to office. They don't become absolute dictator of the US yet they both act like that would be the case.

 

The point is simple yet you continue to try and find justifications and rationalization for why their scare tactics are valid, they're just not to me.

Scare tactics lol. Stop being a lazy nihilist, I remember what the US was like last time the Republicans controlled the entire government.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Scare tactics lol. Stop being a lazy nihilist, I remember what the US was like last time the Republicans controlled the entire government.

With W? Pretty damn close to Obama.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

With W? Pretty damn close to Obama.

Right, Obama extended health insurance coverage to people with pre-existing conditions while Bush prevented Medicare from negotiating drug prices. Same bullshit.

[Praesi]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Yeah let's just elect a fascist who would have complete control over the nation's government instead.

I know. Everyone is a fascist, except the terror funding Government and its puppets. Mainstream Media ftw.

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Right, Obama extended health insurance coverage to people with pre-existing conditions while Bush prevented Medicare from negotiating drug prices. Same bullshit.

Obama care as useless aborted legislation solving fuckall that was torn apart through compromise: precisely what I have been talking about thanks for making the point I've been trying to make.

[skywake]

6 minutes ago, Praesi said:

I know. Everyone is a fascist, except the terror funding Government and its puppets. Mainstream Media ftw.

Well, a German would know I guess

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Obama care as useless aborted legislation solving fuckall that was torn apart through compromise: precisely what I have been talking about thanks for making the point I've been trying to make.

Useless aborted legislation that solves fuckall? You know you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions any more right? You can't have your insurance cancelled the second you get sick like you did pre ACA. I know, it's not the perfect unicorn you expect so fuck it.

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 minutes ago, skywake said:

Well, a German would know I guess

LOL dude you quoted thinks Trump isn't a fascist.

[Misanthrope]

13 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Useless aborted legislation that solves fuckall? You know you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions any more right? You can't have your insurance cancelled the second you get sick like you did pre ACA. I know, it's not the perfect unicorn you expect so fuck it.

Is not only not a perfect unicorn but a joke vs virtually all other countries with universal healthcare for all. And yes, they can afford it, usually with even less funds and no it doesn't bankrupts private health care at all.

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

 

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Is not only not a perfect unicorn but a joke vs virtually all other countries with universal healthcare for all. And yes, they can afford it, usually with even less funds and no it doesn't bankrupts private health care at all.

 

 

Of course Obamacare is a joke compared to the rest of the first world, it's way more expensive than healthcare is in other countries. But it's an incremental improvement on what was there before, when you had the high costs just like now but without the access and without the guarantee the insurance you paid for would cover you when you needed it. The house version of the bill was much better with a public insurance option to try to bring prices down a bit but it got shut down by a couple of conservative democrats in the senate. The ACA isn't the bill I was hoping for when I voted Obama in 08, but it's an improvement on what was there before. I don't expect any progress on making it better with Clinton in the white house because it'll get shutdown by the Republican House and by the filibuster in the Senate (as there is no way the Democrats will have 60+ members), but I know without a shadow of a doubt it's gone under a president Trump since the House has voted to repeal it 60 times now.

[skywake]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

LOL dude you quoted thinks Trump isn't a fascist.

It's a loaded term, I wouldn't use it. But the window for a joke was there and I took it

[PlayStation 2]

this is why we can't talk about politics

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

 

Of course Obamacare is a joke compared to the rest of the first world, it's way more expensive than healthcare is in other countries. But it's an incremental improvement on what was there before [goes on]

That's my entire point: right now you get nothing but incremental improvements and eventually when Republicans get in (Because they will eventually, even if not with Trump) they'll pass a slight regression and you get fucking nowhere. Because the system is built based on compromising principles which means true change will never be possible.

 

Fact is Trump might win even with your efforts to prevent that simply because the left is usually guilty of the same bullshit scare tactics that turn central but slightly right leaning people away and right into Trump's camp. Yes many will vote to punish Hillary and the left and the more you demand that people vote the way you want to out of pragmatism the more votes you actually ensure for Trump (and viceversa).

 

It's why your elections are always so close to a 50/50 split. Is it really this difficult to see that by defending the system you're advocating for you're also hurting your own positions? Nobody likes to be told "Do x because I fucking say so otherwise bad shit will happen to you!"

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's my entire point: right now you get nothing but incremental improvements and eventually when Republicans get in (Because they will eventually, even if not with Trump) they'll pass a slight regression and you get fucking nowhere. Because the system is built based on compromising principles which means true change will never be possible.

 

Fact is Trump might win even with your efforts to prevent that simply because the left is usually guilty of the same bullshit scare tactics that turn central but slightly right leaning people away and right into Trump's camp. Yes many will vote to punish Hillary and the left and the more you demand that people vote the way you want to out of pragmatism the more votes you actually ensure for Trump (and viceversa).

 

It's why your elections are always so close to a 50/50 split. Is it really this difficult to see that by defending the system you're advocating for you're also hurting your own positions? Nobody likes to be told "Do x because I fucking say so otherwise bad shit will happen to you!"

 

This post doesn't make any sense. I'm not defending any system, I hate our two party political system but it's entrenched in by our constitution and isn't going anywhere. There are very major differences from what a Clinton presidency will look like versus a Trump one, and it's ridiculous to think I shouldn't vote for the one that's better because neither is ideal. You're living in a fantasy land thinking you're going to get benevolent rulers and you wouldn't vote until one comes. I can't believe you consider it a scare tactic pointing out how far to the right the house is and how far to the right the supreme court will swing under Trump. Have you seen his list of nominations? You're taking a lazy position full of false equivalences and I'm glad you can't vote in my nation.

[HKZeroFive]

Threads like these make me appreciate Australian politics just a bit more.

 

To the Yanks - I wish you good luck either way.