jamesinclair
Banned
Its a good thing Harry Reid is holding fast on preserving tradition!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Its a good thing Harry Reid is holding fast on preserving tradition!
I have to say, I find this somewhat offensive. I've repeatedly given my justifications for my positions, and they aren't about wanting to win more, they're about principles -- and the belief that the will of the people should govern. It's really unwarranted of you to suggest that my argument is wholly self-serving. But that's all you've been doing in this entire conversation, with every respondent, without offering any evidence that they're being disingenuous or putting forward any principles of your own at all. It's pretty rude to start from the assumption that everybody you're talking to is lying or incapable of rational discussion!
It strikes me that this "liberals only like democracy because their ideas have the support of a majority of the electorate" thing is just the reverse of what some in this thread were talking about when rating historical presidents. Some expressed the opinion that a president's motivations mattered less than his accomplishments.
So Qazaq, does the fact that Lincoln's move to make the Civil War about slavery was motivated at least in part by strategic and political concerns mean that he shouldn't have done it?
So Qazaq, does the fact that Lincoln's move to make the Civil War about slavery was motivated at least in part by strategic and political concerns mean that he shouldn't have done it?
Well first let me apologize because it's difficult to be specific when I have to answer a bunch of people hurling things at me.
I was about to say because you're not being specific, but in actuality, I'm not really being specific either.
Remember: The debate we're having is within the context of what the VA Republicans are doing and why it's unfair. I'm using it as a benchmark to compare the National Popular Vote to.
It's important to make the distinction. Why?
Because although debating what democracy is overlaps, ultimately, we don't necessarily have to delve that far deep. I mean, if we want to debate what really is the best version of Democracy, you can look at Dax and go that far and basically eliminate what our representational democracy has been for many, many years. Direct election of everything. And then you can go into bad territory of tyranny of the majority -- which, well, being gay, I'm aware of the pratfalls of.
But that's a huge pool, and I'm merely talking about it in the context of what the VA republicans are doing. About the systematic implications of deciding the presidency that way.
Also:
Since everyone has such huge different versions of democracy, there's nothing more democratic about doing it via the popular vote vs. on a statewide basis vs. on a district basis except because so-and-so-said-so.
But what TRANSCENDS the mere opinion of what so-and-so-thinks about which system is "more" democratic than another, is how it advantages or disadvantages a party or not -- compared with what we currently do.
The two are not equivalent. Your only argument is that they are both changes to the status quo partially motivated by partisan political gain. Why should I care about the motives? One side wants the will of the people represented more accurately the other side doesn't.
Again, why does the beneficiary of a change to the status quo transcend whether it is a good idea or not. This is about the citizens, not the democratic or republican party.
Hillary won, coming away without making news in basically an 8 hour day of grilling. Looked professional, putting herself on a higher level than those doing the grilling, and had confidence coming out the ying yang.
Hillary won, coming away without making news in basically an 8 hour day of grilling. Looked professional, putting herself on a higher level than those doing the grilling, and had confidence coming out the ying yang.
oh. my. god. @ this gif lmfao
So you're saying the idea can't be judged on it's own merits, because that would be unfair to Republicans?
Also, I think I see where we're coming to a disagreement. You are arguing from the stance that the current Electoral system is the pinnacle of "fairness," while myself (and just about everyone else in here), are operating under the belief that the most fair system is not our current one, but one that guarantees victory to the winner of the Popular vote. My definition of a "fair" election is one which best represents the will of the majority of voters (in which case, a popular vote is the most fair). You seem to have a different view of what a fair election process is (from what I gather, you think it should somehow give each candidate a roughly equal chance of winning, regardless of the will of the people).
Furthermore, you are entirely wrong that a popular vote somehow systematically favors Dems. Republicans have won the popular vote tons of times throughout history. A popular vote would only favor Dems currently because currently more Americans align with the Democratic party. In the past that wasn't so, and in the future it may not be so. There's no systematic bias there.
Also, have you considered that perhaps the current system is systematically biased towards Republicans (more accurately, rural voters who tend to identify currently with the Republican party), and that the gains Democrats would receive by switching to a popular vote would simply be a correction to an existing bias against them?
The bolded part is essentially correct, yes.
"One side wants the will of the people represented more accurately the other side doesn't"
BUT THAT'S THE THING! SAYS WHO?
Do Maine and Nebraska not represent their peoples' voices more accurately because they split their EVs?
That's what I keep saying: If you take a step back, you can define "represent more accurately" a BAJILLION different ways. Everyone has their own opinion.
What the VA Republicans are doing is outrageous not because it is undemocratic on its face. It feels undemocratic because it systematically gives an advantage to the other party just by sheer system-changing; even when everything else stayed the same.
jamesinclair
Banned
It smells like an animal farm in here.
They make an argument against the city visits without really offering their alternative prediction.
I don't see how they'd prioritize campaign stops any other way than "what areas have the most votes I can swing to my side" and I'd imagine those will very often be cities. Places like DFW would probably be popular for visits for dems. Wouldn't the GOP benefit by going to NY?
This seems to be assuming everyone who can vote does (I didn't watch the whole thing but he's citing census numbers). About a third of the US population voted in the last election. Again I'm not arguing against a popular vote, just saying.
Not as accurately as a popular vote. Do you really want to argue that point? As silly as it is, it's still a more important argument than the one we're having right now.
No offense, but this is utterly backwards. The ephemeral effects of current-day politics are definitionally ephemeral -- just eight years ago people thought we were in a permanent Republican majority, remember? What transcends the immediate political ramifications are the fundamental principles we construct our democracy around. That's why I asked you what you think the principles of a democracy should be! But you have, again, sidestepped that question, this time by asserting, apparently, that there are NO fundamental principles to democracy -- that it's all "so and so said so."
I suppose if you really believe this then you're right -- we should be worrying about the effects on the next election, because who gives a shit about principles? But I don't believe this -- again, as I observed, it's easy to come up with systems that are obviously less democratic, so I think there must also exist systems that are more democratic. Sure, it might require some discussion of principles, but, hey, it's a DISCUSSION THREAD. And hopefully it should be clear to you by now that your position essentially boils down to opposing all changes to the current system no matter what -- because either a change will benefit one party, in which case it's necessarily "undemocratic," or it benefits neither party, in which case it doesn't effect the election at all, in which case why bothber?
I think you just fixed our democracy! Seriously, if we could get a system like this I can't imagine how different and more effective government could be.
Let's pass an amendment to undue Citizens United and publicly finance political campaigns while we're at it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You are literally arguing that we should not fix a flaw in the system because at current one party would benefit from the flaw being fixed. But the whole point is that the reason its a flaw is because the party in question deserves to benefit and isn't
Okay, is your argument that the popular vote isn't the best metric for determining who should be elected?
There is in fact one singular most accurate way to measure the will of the people: count the votes and elect the person who got the most. It's pretty simple. Sure there are lots of other ways to do it, but that's the way that is the most reflective of the voters. It's that simple. There is really nothing to argue on that one, despite your efforts.
But I mean, don't we discount the idea of the fairness of deciding a president via gerrymandered district because it's unfair to Democrats?
That's the whole reason this is worth talking about as something grounded in present day reality instead of just having a nice old debate about systems of democracy.
No, I'm not. I'm not saying it's the "pinnacle" of anything. I liken it to how a compromise usually feels. It doesn't really advantage either party majorly, and no one really likes it.
No, if I wanted to discuss that I'd be discussing about Citizens United and campaign finance.
You all take for granted that national popular vote INHERENTLY means "best represents the will of the majority of voters", and that is so surface-y and un-thought-out, and the fact is there are a ton of different ways to think about that.
That's why I'm saying that we can narrow down the ways to think about it by comparing it to how it advantages one party or not.
I thought this was the thread where we talk about a blog post we made/are thinking about making?
The Librarian
Banned
What is more accurate than people voting for their most preferred candidate with no bullshit in between?
We discount it because it's unfair to VOTERS.
Narrow it down to ANOTHER TOPIC ENTIRELY.
If you think that's an un-thought-out position, why don't you spend some time explaining why instead of repeating yourself?
No we absolutely don't. It's about the fairness to the voters, not the political parties.
maybe there is an advanced race of mind readers who would be able to totally and completely understand a candidate down to their most base levels and if they got to have their votes counted double it'd be more accurate?
:lol
Yes! I already said this in the other thread.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The one argument I can think of in favor of the district system is that it can compensate for large differences in voter turnout by treating those who do vote as a "representative sample" of the area, and weighting that area's influence on the election accordingly. Which isn't, to me, enough of a good reason to keep a system that allows for bullshit like gerrymandering.
Giant Panda
Member
I'm kind of conflicted about letting women in combat on the front lines. If they can perform to the same standards as men all the more power to them, but I'd bet a good portion of them can't. Especially for special forces units, I don't see them being able to keep up for the most part so effectively those units should remain closed.
Hil-dawg is the one in white.
So she probably should face a serious punishment but is going to get away with it?
I don't think you've actually comprehended a single word anyone has said in the last page which is quite amazing as it's really fucking simple. No, we don't discount the idea because it's unfair to democrats. We discount it because it's unfair to VOTERS. If we had Neogaf in the 80s, I'm sure we'd be arguing for the same shit even as Reagan steamrolls the country.
I read this Asimov story and it didn't sound that bad really.
So...
it's more fair for Utah to cast all of its electoral votes to Romney, despite Salt Lake City, just like the Omaha area being able to cast its vote for Obama was also unfair?
Or was the Nebraska 2008 an example of a result MORE ACCURATELY reflecting the will of the people?
The President being elected by popular vote does not systemically benefit the Democratic Party, it benefits the American voter. In fact, since Democrats currently hold an advantage much greater in the electoral college than in the popular vote, ending the electoral college would hurt the Democrats more. Apparently this must be repeated: Obama won 51% of the popular vote and 61% of the electoral vote. And yet I am still advocating for a system that makes his victory far smaller, and much more in jeopardy. Recall that there were several weeks where Romney led in the polls in the raw popular vote, while never leading in the electoral college.
Of course, that's merely the situation now. One cannot easily predict what elections would look like (or what candidates would be nominated) if every vote was counted equally and people in deeply red/blue states weren't just going through the motions. But even if it was a serious setback to Democrats I would still support electing our President through direct popular vote rather than continue absurd schemes that discourage voters in order to make our elected leaders more Federal than National.
Of course, that's merely the situation now. One cannot easily predict what elections would look like (or what candidates would be nominated) if every vote was counted equally and people in deeply red/blue states weren't just going through the motions. But even if it was a serious setback to Democrats I would still support electing our President through direct popular vote rather than continue absurd schemes that discourage voters in order to make our elected leaders more Federal than National.
Yes, a national popular vote gives each voter an equal say in the matter. The current system doesn't. Therefore more fair.
I have mixed feelings as well. Hopefully what this really means is that soldier roles will be determined by individual skill rather than simply looking at gender, which wouldn't skew effectiveness. This also might lead to fewer females enlisting.
We haven't decided anything. We've argued the point. You haven't.
I keep trying to say this and no one wants to admit it:
There are different ways to define what "fair" is, what "democracy" is, and what it means to "have a fair say", and that doesn't equal a national popular vote like you're all acting as if it's some obvious fact that everyone else is just too blind to see.
jamesinclair
Banned
We need to give all the black people together two votes and all the white people together fivecvotes.
That's democracy
If you're a hardcore Obama hater in Utah, even if Obama lost the election, would you want the right to say "Utah does not endorse Barack Obama for president"?
Why does ANYONE vote for president in deep red or deep blue states? It's to have a say; to have their voices heard.
You can argue that a national popular vote makes their voices heard just as much as you can argue that it makes their voices heard LESS. By expanding the boarders through which we consider votes cast, you certainly can marginalize people just as much as you might be including them.
Why does ANYONE vote for president in deep red or deep blue states? It's to have a say; to have their voices heard.
You can argue that a national popular vote makes their voices heard just as much as you can argue that it makes their voices heard LESS. By expanding the boarders through which we consider votes cast, you certainly can marginalize people just as much as you might be including them.
I would say more like this:
"The fairest way to democratically elect our representatives is the national popular vote as we believe all voters should have equal say in their direct representative".
If that's the case, you should probably construct a coherent argument that illustrates your statement. Because you're just stating it over and over, but have yet to explain why some other system is more representative than counting the votes and declaring the winner based on who got the most votes.
Please do, I'd love to hear this argument. I can't imagine what it would be.
Yes, but some ways to define them are better for our citizens than others. The different ways clash in a battle of ideas and one comes out on top in the form of a change in policy. It's silly to frame these ideas only relative to the benefit one party receives from them.
Yes we can argue that. In fact let's do it right now on this discussion board.
You can make both arguments, but they can't both be accurate if your terms are consistent. Personally, I don't think "losing by getting outvoted" is getting "marginalized," so I don't think that's a very good argument.
And you know when you don't say that?
When you're a farmer in Nebraska or Kansas or Oklahoma.
NeoGAF's blinders are so infuriating sometimes. You don't even have to agree with me, but no one stops to think that the way that they would like to see the systems of democracy altered in this country is because it aligns just as much with their interests as much as they may find it to be "more fair".
Those minority of farmers in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma probably would like to revert back to the days when black people like me were disenfranchised. What the fucking fuck does this have to do with anything.
- Status