-
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 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Thing is for the most part it works, but when there are millions of people voting, the chance of any error is high.
The polling stations are only set up for one day. At the end of the day, the ballots are locked in boxes that are taken to a central location, usually the Board of Elections, and then people there have to count. The data stick that is taken out of the counting machine goes to the Board of Elections too. The provisional, non-machine-cast ballots also go to Board of Elections.
In NYC, there are 5 boroughs and there are a Board of Elections office in each borough, but even in Brooklyn alone (1 borough) there are 800k+ registered voters. If you get maybe 18% of the total registered voters to vote, it would still be 144k ballots that the staff at the board office has to recount. Not to mention the manpower needed to handle provisional ballots, which have to have their information verified and checked to ensure the ballot can count for the election.
It's not possible for every polling station to remain open for every recount that's asked for.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Oh man... it's about to get uglier isn't it?
Abinash117
Member
I don't see how not giving a shit is a moderate issue, and no just because that many Republicans are vehemently against gays doesn't mean not caring to help is more okay. Many establishment Republicans don't care really.
benicillin
Banned
Did anyone ever source that because I never saw that fundraising page mentioned anywhere else.
Tad's yacht won't buy itself
Modern bananas have been around a long time! I'd venture to guess that there hasn't been any findings to them causing health issues, but maybe Bernie knows something I don't.
The anti-GMO stance of today is "we need to label GMOs so consumers have a choice". Let's not use flowery language and make Bernie's stance look any better than it is.
brainchild
Banned
I've had this discussion before, but basically I suggested labeling in a way that was clear that there is no current evidence to suggest that GMO foods are harmful, though research is still underway. No fearmongering tactic has ever made such statements, as it would quell fears, not enforce them.
From what I understand, the scientific advisers have been strongly pushing solar/wind/geothermal to the environmental committee, and Bernie is simply listening to them.
He's not so much anti-nuclear as he is in believing that other alternatives are more important.
Let's not conflate the length of existence of GMO foods (something that has been happening naturally for eons, BTW) with the length of reputable scientific studies on GMO foods. Relatively speaking, the research has not reached the long term.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump would have won Colorado if people in Colorado could have voted:
http://magellanstrategies.com/donald-trump-effect-not-politician-dominating-on-immigration/
Coming to a Trump stump speech near you.
http://magellanstrategies.com/donald-trump-effect-not-politician-dominating-on-immigration/
Coming to a Trump stump speech near you.
This is still a terrible idea. It's a gigantic and ridiculous waste of everyone's time and resources in the best case scenario, nevermind regulating what actually falls under a GMO label and what doesn't.
If you think "though research is still under way" (something that can be said about anything ever researched) would actually quell fears, I don't know what to say.
Fukushima, issues with storing the nuclear waste, as well as science advisers pushing heavily for other renewable sources.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Oh god, everything is terrible. Also, I wonder if mutation breeding deserves a label under this same "informational only" reasoning.
I think if it didn't work people would be in the streets looking for blood, for all the talk about voter's apathy I can't imagine this faring to well.
Ok this makes sense.
There seems to be needless complications with provisional ballots and voting machines.
Due to the election not taking place in 1 day that is off and having a significant portion of the vote being provisional you cannot have a simple system to count them.
It actually make sense to have machine handle the heavy lifting for the voting system.
It's the sort of reasons that explains some of the choices made and the effects they have on the process.
It's basically the 1rst US election I follow from this side of the pond and the information you can get from foreign media is partial at best (if you think the US media is pushing for the horse race....oh boy).
I guess you can make an argument for voting machine in the US but that wouldn't work everywhere at all.
Depends.
Let's allow for GMO labelling, so we can also open yet another venue for lobbying and price discrimination to determine such details. Yay!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Ted Cruz's friends are basically Christian ISIS except bound by American laws and structure:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117259426336524.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117259426336524.html
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I would love for GMO's to be labeled.
But I want everything that has ever been modified for consumption to be labeled a GMO. When everything is GMO nothing is GMO
But I want everything that has ever been modified for consumption to be labeled a GMO. When everything is GMO nothing is GMO
brainchild
Banned
I'm thinking that "currently there is no evidence to suggest that GMO foods are harmful for consumption" is pretty clear on the safety of the food.
Anyway, I'm pretty pro-information when it comes to consumerism, so as long as it's clear that GMO foods don't appear to be harmful, I'm totally fine with the labeling if the majority of Americans are willing to spend their taxes on it.
It should be noted that Bernie believes the decision should be left up to the State.
This would actually be awesome, lol
Atomic Playboy
Member
This argument can be used to support the labeling of literally any product on Earth. "Warning: There is no current evidence to support that wearing natural fibers causes cancer." People don't care what it says; they see a warning label and think "well if there was no reason to think it was harmful, they wouldn't require a label!" And that's a valid line of reasoning; why require a label on something that has been scientifically demonstrated to be safe? If further research shows that there is a definitive link between GMOs and health risks, then by all means, label them. But you're putting the cart before the horse when you label a safe product as "maybe it's dangerous?" rather than waiting for a single shred of evidence that supports that conclusion.
brainchild
Banned
It doesn't need to be a warning label. More like 'free range chicken' labels.
excelsiorlef
Member
Lol.
Good lord.
Stop asking for money.
Tad has been paid enough.
Bernie has called for a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States.
He's anti-nuclear.
I also find this hilarious:
"Ever the financial watchdog, Bernie has also questioned why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry."
How are you supposed to incentive alternative, clean energy without subsidies? Just tax oil and gas until they aren't economically viable? Yeah, that'll definitely work out fine. Or are subsides to nuclear bad but subsidies to solar and wind just fine?
If the research hasn't been done then why is Sanders claiming that the medical community has raised health concerns about GMOs?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I don't understand how you can be pro-science and not understand the psychology of labels.
You realize the equivalent of that is a label for food that is "Organic", not a requirement that all non-organic food be labelled. Putting aside the incredibly mushy definitions for 'organic' obviously.
You realize the equivalent of that is a label for food that is "Organic", not a requirement that all non-organic food be labelled. Putting aside the incredibly mushy definitions for 'organic' obviously.
As has been repeated again, and again, and again, irrelevant information distorts markets and can have significant negative effects. Reducing the issue to that ignores what the actual crux of the discussion is in the first place.
If your point is along the lines of "I understand that adding this may impact markets -- I think it's worth the risk despite zero evidence of gains for consumers", by all means, defend away. But you need to acknowledge the risks, not just brush them aside.
Finally -- "The decision should be left up to the State" is a political position that lost all its diversion power decades ago.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay, this may be a pretty tasteless joke, but I have to think that if Bernie was a young, female candidate, people would never shut up about the fact that college kids kept throwing 10s and 20s at the campaign.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I don't think it should be framed as "Should GMOs be labelled." It should be "Should for companies be forced to label them." Given that there seems to be no scientific basis to justify a label, I don't think there's a legal basis to justify mandating labels. If a consumer really wants to know whether their food has GMOs, there are hundreds of brands that voluntarily give them that info. They can vote with their wallets.
And there was a poll last week (CBS?) that had Trump at 49%
Atomic Playboy
Member
So voluntarily done as a marketing tool rather than required by the government? I'm fine with that. If there's a significant population that absolutely does not want to consume GMO products, let companies produce those products and advertise them as such; a good marketplace solution (which already happens). Requiring the government get involved is nonsense.
Exactly.
We can regulate it and mandate labels to specific types of modifications when we find evidence that those types of modifications are harmful in any way.
Which is something that is lost in this whole discussion: If we mandate GMO labelling now with no actual thought about what we are actually labelling, what happens if we find that specific modifications are harmful?
Add another label on top of it? Call it something else, and label it again? How do we not confuse customers with this?
Actually if you have an independent body that check that the labels aren't BS that would work.
I mean that's pretty much why people are asking for a government mandated label.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
My only concern with GMOs (which may be borne of ignorance) is the patenting of seeds and how SCOTUS rulings might harm farmers.
In terms of genetic engeneering, we've always bred plants. Corn in the wild before it was cross-bred to be what it now is was tough and inedible (or nearly so), as one example. I am sure that there is the possibility of a bad cross-breed in a lab, but I'd assume the same to be possible if someone was cross-breeding plants Mendel-style or just like the first farmers did.
In terms of genetic engeneering, we've always bred plants. Corn in the wild before it was cross-bred to be what it now is was tough and inedible (or nearly so), as one example. I am sure that there is the possibility of a bad cross-breed in a lab, but I'd assume the same to be possible if someone was cross-breeding plants Mendel-style or just like the first farmers did.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
More posting than I've ever done, I think!
Our population is huge, and counting is super imprecise anyway. Ask someone to count 1000ish pieces of paper. They'll get it wrong. The reason no one cares is because the cause is also the solution; there are so many damn people that a ballot getting stuck to another one isn't going to do anything. The whole "every vote counts" is just a platitude; statistically, that one vote isn't tipping any election (and if it did, there'd be mandatory recounts for weeks if it was that close).
I can't state enough how much Bernie's GMO stance is idiotic, and nuclear. Both of them are using science to improve living conditions. Wasn't there some poll that asked people if food made with dihydrogen monoxide should be labeled, and a frighteningly high number said yes? Idiots, the lot of them.
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons
and reasons that sound good. - Burton Hillis
Simplifying the tax code seems to apply here to me. I get wanting to do your taxes on a postcard, but the better solution is to just make the IRS do it for you, and then you pay what they say you owe (which is sort of how we do it now, it's not like they don't check to see what you've paid).
See above: He's being an idiot.
Also see above re: that poll I think someone took. People aren't super bright on scientific topics, and I think it's hypocritical to only laugh at climate change deniers when we've got our own idiots on the left.
Our population is huge, and counting is super imprecise anyway. Ask someone to count 1000ish pieces of paper. They'll get it wrong. The reason no one cares is because the cause is also the solution; there are so many damn people that a ballot getting stuck to another one isn't going to do anything. The whole "every vote counts" is just a platitude; statistically, that one vote isn't tipping any election (and if it did, there'd be mandatory recounts for weeks if it was that close).
I can't state enough how much Bernie's GMO stance is idiotic, and nuclear. Both of them are using science to improve living conditions. Wasn't there some poll that asked people if food made with dihydrogen monoxide should be labeled, and a frighteningly high number said yes? Idiots, the lot of them.
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons
and reasons that sound good. - Burton Hillis
Simplifying the tax code seems to apply here to me. I get wanting to do your taxes on a postcard, but the better solution is to just make the IRS do it for you, and then you pay what they say you owe (which is sort of how we do it now, it's not like they don't check to see what you've paid).
See above: He's being an idiot.
Oh god, everything is terrible. Also, I wonder if mutation breeding deserves a label under this same "informational only" reasoning.
Also see above re: that poll I think someone took. People aren't super bright on scientific topics, and I think it's hypocritical to only laugh at climate change deniers when we've got our own idiots on the left.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Provisional ballots aren't a needless complication. If a voter believes he is properly registered and it is the mistake of the board of elections that he isn't on the voter registration list, then the voter has a right to cast a ballot, and that is why provisional ballots exist. I think they are a necessary procedure in the process, even if they create more work at the end of the day.
There are states where the vote is cast by machine, and other states which you mark a ballot and run it through a machine. Sometimes the machines can be old-style machines. In NYC at the end of the day a long information tape is printed from each machine we have and sent to the board of elections with the flash drive from each machine. This is the means by which the votes will be counted, but if a candidate seriously challenges the board for a recount, the ballot boxes will be opened to count the ballots directly. If the machine was operating incorrectly, then keeping the individual ballots is not so 'needless'. No matter what, when you operate hundreds of machines there is always the chance that one of them breaks down. It isn't a needless complication, it's a complication that isn't asked for but can happen anyway.
Its actually weird - Trump can do anything and won't lose support with his core. So going "middle" actually isn't that risky for him.
Not surprising. Everyone here agrees that California is Trump territory.
Macho Madness
Member
Seeing this get passed around in Bernie supporter circles as absolute fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3rncq9/confession_of_hillary_shill_from/
Actually I would interested in cooking these, lol
Oh god, everything is terrible. Also, I wonder if mutation breeding deserves a label under this same "informational only" reasoning.
And that's where you lose me.
There's processes to count ballot to avoid counting wrong, that's why counting ballots is usually a lengthy process.
And unless I'm mistaken it's not 1 guy counting 1 ballot box.
I find the argument that "well there's plenty of papers and you get to count it by hand by 1 guy, of course he's going to get it wrong but it's ok because he only forgot to count 5 votes in this box of 1000" a bit short.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
We shouldn't even talk about GMOs until we can actually agree on what it's being modified from. The idea that food came to us fully formed in some pristine genetic state and not through the same processes of evolution and genetic alterations that created us is ridiculous. Food is constantly undergoing genetic modification, just as all living things are. Whether those changes occur through random mutations, induced random mutations, or deliberate modification doesn't really matter; it's not the process we should worry about, it's the changes.
Unless there's a baseline "version" of a food's genetic code that we all agree is the starting point, there's no way to even say something is "unmodified". You can't just arbitrarily pick a point in a food's genetic development and say everything before this was "natural" and everything after was "unnatural".
Unless there's a baseline "version" of a food's genetic code that we all agree is the starting point, there's no way to even say something is "unmodified". You can't just arbitrarily pick a point in a food's genetic development and say everything before this was "natural" and everything after was "unnatural".
brainchild
Banned
My point was that his stance on nuclear energy is directly related to his stance on other alternatives, not because he views nuclear as inherently terrible; just not worth the cost/risks when there are better alternatives.
As for GMO research, I never said that no research has been conducted. I said it has not reached the long term. The medical community is concerned about the uncertainty that naturally arises from a lack of long term research.
Are scientists not allowed to have disagreements on how scientific topics should be communicated?
Yes, it will impact the markets. But again, if Americans wanna pay for it, I say let them.
Finally, as another poster alluded to, if everything is GMO labeled, people really won't be concerned about it. Not only doesn't that shut up fearmongerers, but people learn something else about the world; most food is genetically engineered
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Plus he protected his "political correctness" flank a bit by coming out against putting Tubman on the $20.
Amazing watching Cruz's entire staff jump out the window on this trans bathroom issue. This isn't the issue you want to exploit when people view you as a jerk and the general election is coming.
I guess it's difference of system.
To begin with the primary process in the US is unique so the whole party affiliation is unique to the US.
As for whether or not you're in the list, it's nice that if you're past the deadline you can still vote somehow. In France if you're not in the list past the deadline you simply do not vote.
I would argue that my position is reasonable but it's not my call to make and in the end if people in the US consider it necessary it's their call.
Point taken.
If you introduce a machine you have to take into account maintenance.
eBay Huckster
Member
so based on current projections for the remaining states in the race, the probability that Sanders wins more than 2025 pledged delegates is 0.018%. (for reference, that's lower than the probability that you'll lose a limb in a chainsaw accident.)
and that's probably overstating the chances, given that this dude's projections have pennsylvania as a 3-point race when it's probably 15.
not that any of us were unaware, but interesting to see it as an actual concrete number now
and that's probably overstating the chances, given that this dude's projections have pennsylvania as a 3-point race when it's probably 15.
not that any of us were unaware, but interesting to see it as an actual concrete number now
brainchild
Banned
I'd support this solution, yes.
"If Americans want to pay for it, let them" is nonsense.
It assumes americans are perfectly capable of figuring out the economic trade-offs of a labeling decision, but incapable of understanding the impact of GMOs without labels.
I don't think I need to elaborate further on how likely that is to be true.
It assumes americans are perfectly capable of figuring out the economic trade-offs of a labeling decision, but incapable of understanding the impact of GMOs without labels.
I don't think I need to elaborate further on how likely that is to be true.
This is an actual (potentially big) issue with GMO crops. This is where everyone's focus should be located.
brainchild
Banned
Or you could just label everything as GMO and get everybody to shut up
Better off just labeling all food that contains DNA at that point.
- Status