You won the World Cup, why riot?

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 16:26

One (hu)man, one vote. Anything less is not democracy.

As a Scot, I can kinda almost see the “advantage” of an electoral college. For instance, Brexit was beat hard here in the referendum, and Northern Ireland (and London!) voted against it too. With a cheaty college, we could have denied the English shires their daft desire.

But I’d rather be an independent nation. Which is the solution I advise to America’s flyover country, if they really feel so different from the coasts. Don’t diddle in someone else’s elections: have your own and rule yourselves.

andrewjoy

25 Jul 2018, 16:56

The Scotland situation is a strange one.

You essentially have 3 governments, a local one that you vote for a UK one that you vote for and an EU one that you don't. Sure you vote in the EU members of parliament but they don't make the laws they just vote yes or no on them, and keep voting until they get the correct result for the commission.

You say you want to be independent and that's fine, if that's the will of the Scottish people go for it. But its a little disingenuous to call people who want the exact same thing from the EU daft, at least you get to vote for the UK government :).

A breakup of the US would be errr odd, your pretty much stuck with it, that's why its a good thing to get out of the EU now before we get in the same situation, your welcome by the way saving Scotland from that situation :)

I did vote remain back when the vote was on but honestly looking back, i wish i had not.

User avatar
Blaise170
ALPS キーボード

25 Jul 2018, 17:11

I'd say that isn't true either. Sure, 80% of the population of MA lives in Greater Boston, but again, should the needs of the 20% dwarf the needs of the 80%? On a state legislation level, sure, popular vote leaves out the rural voters in Western MA. But on a national level, the rural population's vote would actually count and not be ignored as it happens now.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 17:13

Exactly! Count everyone and everyone counts. Democracy means winning people’s votes. Not picking whose votes to count! If every vote is counted, then every single vote matters, everywhere it’s cast. Maine, Manhattan, Minnesota, Mississippi, an American is an American and a vote is a vote.


@Andy: We have actual local government, too. City of Edinburgh council deals with the bins and potholes here; not very well I must add! Scottish Parliament has most of the stuff Westminster handles for you but much better as the Tories have never been anywhere near power. A few key things though are reserved, including foreign policy and immigration rules alas. Oh, and Westminster’s currently fighting in the courts to snatch back some more:

http://indyref2.scot/scottish-parliamen ... -challenge

It’s a mess. We don’t feel, and don’t vote, like you lot in England. On austerity, on nukes, or on every damn piece of shrapnel flying out of Brexit. Even Scots who voted No in the independence referendum mostly identified as Scots first, British second (if at all). What lost us the argument last time round was the fear of future chaos independence might bring. We’ll see how that pans out once we hit the cliffs of No Deal Brexit with you next spring.
Last edited by Muirium on 25 Jul 2018, 17:18, edited 1 time in total.

andrewjoy

25 Jul 2018, 17:18

Hey a No deal is better than that clusterfuck May is wanting at the moment.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 17:20

May is awful. And every other Tory scheming to knife her is even worse.

No deal does mean food shortages and the like. It’ll be a real wake up call if, as looks all too likely now, it happens.

andrewjoy

25 Jul 2018, 17:21

I dunno there are a few out there like Mogg who i think could do a better job.( even if i don't agree with some of his personal politics )

A no deal will not mean food shortages, in fact food will likely get cheaper as we can import from outside the EU without the restrictions and charges the EU puts on it to prop up EU farmers.

mac80211

25 Jul 2018, 20:30

green-squid wrote: 'How come you are RIOTING? Thankfully, we deal with riots in the best ways ;) '

Image
LOL

User avatar
chuckdee

25 Jul 2018, 20:32

vivalarevolución wrote: Uh, you actually believe that reasoning? The electoral college still exists because it allows the parties to only campign in like five states, and even only campaign in a few areas of that state. Then they can completely ignore issues of concern in states where the winner is predictable, which is the vast majority of the population. It eliminates the voices of more Americans than it supposedly lifts up. It is a system of convenience that allows a candidate to win an election with far less than the majority of votes. And the Republican Party loves it because they know their popularity is declining and they have a very difficult time with winning the majority of votes.
This. So much this. It's also the reason that no one stands a snowball's chance in hell other than one of the major parties.
Muirium wrote: One (hu)man, one vote. Anything less is not democracy.
I get that the original reason for the Electoral College was tribalism, i.e. the tendency of large bodies to migrate to certain ends of the spectrum of opinion. But that doesn't seem to be a problem now, which is why I wonder why we stick with something from a bygone era (well, other than the retention of the status quo).

One person, one vote. Majority wins. It's like that for almost all other elections in the States (and I only say almost, because I'm not sure that there isn't something else this archaic out there). Why is the Presidency still different?

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 21:26

Why technically? Because of the United States constitution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article ... g_electors

Why politically? Because changing that requires a constitutional amendment, needing ratified by three quarters of those oh so pesky states.

Why is this a problem? The Democratic Party presidential candidate won the popular vote in every single election from 1992 to 2016 but one. (Kerry in 2004). That’s 6 Democratic wins to the Republicans 1. The Republicans have much to fear if the system were fair and balanced.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

25 Jul 2018, 21:28

chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote: Uh, you actually believe that reasoning? The electoral college still exists because it allows the parties to only campign in like five states, and even only campaign in a few areas of that state. Then they can completely ignore issues of concern in states where the winner is predictable, which is the vast majority of the population. It eliminates the voices of more Americans than it supposedly lifts up. It is a system of convenience that allows a candidate to win an election with far less than the majority of votes. And the Republican Party loves it because they know their popularity is declining and they have a very difficult time with winning the majority of votes.
This. So much this. It's also the reason that no one stands a snowball's chance in hell other than one of the major parties.
Muirium wrote: One (hu)man, one vote. Anything less is not democracy.
I get that the original reason for the Electoral College was tribalism, i.e. the tendency of large bodies to migrate to certain ends of the spectrum of opinion. But that doesn't seem to be a problem now, which is why I wonder why we stick with something from a bygone era (well, other than the retention of the status quo).

One person, one vote. Majority wins. It's like that for almost all other elections in the States (and I only say almost, because I'm not sure that there isn't something else this archaic out there). Why is the Presidency still different?
Tribalism isn't a problem now? Is that a joke? Tribalism is still alive and strong. The Age of Enlightenment and fact seeking are out. Now it's all about what's best for my tribe or whatever the tribal leaders say.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 21:32

Yup. Sad and very dangerous. But so true.

We’ve been on this course since at least 1979, incidentally. But it’s utterly absurd as of late.

User avatar
Blaise170
ALPS キーボード

25 Jul 2018, 21:35

I just hope we get some people living on Mars before our governments start a nuclear war.

davkol

25 Jul 2018, 21:36

Has anyone said Enlightenment?

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

25 Jul 2018, 22:00

Muirium wrote: One (hu)man, one vote. Anything less is not democracy.

As a Scot, I can kinda almost see the “advantage” of an electoral college. For instance, Brexit was beat hard here in the referendum, and Northern Ireland (and London!) voted against it too. With a cheaty college, we could have denied the English shires their daft desire.

But I’d rather be an independent nation. Which is the solution I advise to America’s flyover country, if they really feel so different from the coasts. Don’t diddle in someone else’s elections: have your own and rule yourselves.
The biggest divide in America is not state by state or regional. It has more to do with urban-rural. Even in deep red and deep blue states, you'll see the poltical fault lines be defined by the lines of the metro areas, more so than anything else.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

25 Jul 2018, 22:02

Blaise170 wrote: I just hope we get some people living on Mars before our governments start a nuclear war.
Finally, a visionary!

The current Mars colony leader, Elon Musk is now distracted by Twitter beefs and mini submarines. Perhaps you could take up the Torch?

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 22:15

We’ll build a rocket. We’ll load it up. We’ll seal In the colonists. And then we’ll degenerate into an internet row over calling each other a “pedo” and let the wretched souls starve on the launch pad.

One day, all this will be yours too, China.

User avatar
zrrion

25 Jul 2018, 23:34

Only people who like the same switches as me (and also hate the same switches as me) get to live on mars with me and the other people who can fit in our rocket.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

25 Jul 2018, 23:46

Mars shall be a keyswitch ethnostate!

Another neat actual thing about Mars is it’ll have a distinct internet, thanks to the speed of light. It’s several minutes away—14 light minutes on average—which makes conversations non real-time and is just about enough to screw with people’s sense of simultaneity. I mean, it’s no Alpha Centauri—what year is this again?—but space is freaking huge, and we’re not. Once you’re off Earth, you’re quickly off the internet, too. We rely a lot on physical closeness.

User avatar
chuckdee

25 Jul 2018, 23:51

vivalarevolución wrote:
chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote: Uh, you actually believe that reasoning? The electoral college still exists because it allows the parties to only campign in like five states, and even only campaign in a few areas of that state. Then they can completely ignore issues of concern in states where the winner is predictable, which is the vast majority of the population. It eliminates the voices of more Americans than it supposedly lifts up. It is a system of convenience that allows a candidate to win an election with far less than the majority of votes. And the Republican Party loves it because they know their popularity is declining and they have a very difficult time with winning the majority of votes.
This. So much this. It's also the reason that no one stands a snowball's chance in hell other than one of the major parties.
Muirium wrote: One (hu)man, one vote. Anything less is not democracy.
I get that the original reason for the Electoral College was tribalism, i.e. the tendency of large bodies to migrate to certain ends of the spectrum of opinion. But that doesn't seem to be a problem now, which is why I wonder why we stick with something from a bygone era (well, other than the retention of the status quo).

One person, one vote. Majority wins. It's like that for almost all other elections in the States (and I only say almost, because I'm not sure that there isn't something else this archaic out there). Why is the Presidency still different?
Tribalism isn't a problem now? Is that a joke? Tribalism is still alive and strong. The Age of Enlightenment and fact seeking are out. Now it's all about what's best for my tribe or whatever the tribal leaders say.
I'm not saying Tribalism isn't a problem. Looking back, I didn't state that clearly enough. Tribalism just isn't a problem in terms of elections in any way that an Electoral College actually solves. What problem today is solved by the Electoral College? Before, it was in the way of access- that's what I meant. If the community didn't think that voting was important, then most people didn't take the time nor the effort to do so. Also, the smaller communities weren't deemed to be important, and states' issues were not taken into consideration. That part isn't a problem anymore- at least I haven't seen it to be.
Last edited by chuckdee on 26 Jul 2018, 00:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fohat
Elder Messenger

25 Jul 2018, 23:58

chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote:
Tribalism isn't a problem now? Is that a joke? Tribalism is still alive and strong.
I'm not saying Tribalism isn't a problem.
Quite an excellent article on the subject:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... alism.html

User avatar
Muirium
µ

26 Jul 2018, 00:14

But can we survive Brexit?

https://wingsoverscotland.com/there-wil ... uate-food/

Honestly, the snow here in March made milk and bread impossible to find in Edinburgh for days. Then it melted. You have to wonder what we’re heading for next March.

User avatar
webwit
Wild Duck

26 Jul 2018, 00:23

Mr.Nobody wrote:
webwit wrote: Yes, but now you've got to play and name some Chinese propaganda, otherwise you fail just as hard as the people looking away at the oil wars were we're the bad guys. :twisted:
In fact, in China the generations born after 1970s have been taught that everything Western is better than ours in a very sutble but effective manner, that's why most Chinese people( I used to be one of them when I was in my younger age) in China automatically give foreigners or everything foreign prestige. I don't know whether this counts as a propaganda, if it does, it's a pro-West propaganda that I personally loathe very much. On the other hand, those who received education abroad or have worked in foreign countries are quite pro-China like me, maybe because they've seen the real West which isn't even half as good as touted.
Haha, so lame. :lol: This is an attempt at hiding you don't want to attempt. Aw, come on, I know all you Chinese guys use the VPN and such... you can do better than that and really speak truth... :twisted: Say something really bad about China... you should know. :evilgeek:

User avatar
chuckdee

26 Jul 2018, 00:51

webwit wrote:
Mr.Nobody wrote:
webwit wrote: Yes, but now you've got to play and name some Chinese propaganda, otherwise you fail just as hard as the people looking away at the oil wars were we're the bad guys. :twisted:
In fact, in China the generations born after 1970s have been taught that everything Western is better than ours in a very sutble but effective manner, that's why most Chinese people( I used to be one of them when I was in my younger age) in China automatically give foreigners or everything foreign prestige. I don't know whether this counts as a propaganda, if it does, it's a pro-West propaganda that I personally loathe very much. On the other hand, those who received education abroad or have worked in foreign countries are quite pro-China like me, maybe because they've seen the real West which isn't even half as good as touted.
Haha, so lame. :lol: This is an attempt at hiding you don't want to attempt. Aw, come on, I know all you Chinese guys use the VPN and such... you can do better than that and really speak truth... :twisted: Say something really bad about China... you should know. :evilgeek:
To be fair...

Image

But very amusing bait, I must say :evilgeek:

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

26 Jul 2018, 05:21

chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote:
Tribalism isn't a problem now? Is that a joke? Tribalism is still alive and strong. The Age of Enlightenment and fact seeking are out. Now it's all about what's best for my tribe or whatever the tribal leaders say.
I'm not saying Tribalism isn't a problem. Looking back, I didn't state that clearly enough. Tribalism just isn't a problem in terms of elections in any way that an Electoral College actually solves. What problem today is solved by the Electoral College? Before, it was in the way of access- that's what I meant. If the community didn't think that voting was important, then most people didn't take the time nor the effort to do so. Also, the smaller communities weren't deemed to be important, and states' issues were not taken into consideration. That part isn't a problem anymore- at least I haven't seen it to be.
The Electoral College solves the problem of having to actually do nationwide campaigning and creating a political platform that has to appeal to more than white people in a few metro areas in swing states.

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

26 Jul 2018, 05:25

Muirium wrote: Mars shall be a keyswitch ethnostate!

Another neat actual thing about Mars is it’ll have a distinct internet, thanks to the speed of light. It’s several minutes away—14 light minutes on average—which makes conversations non real-time and is just about enough to screw with people’s sense of simultaneity. I mean, it’s no Alpha Centauri—what year is this again?—but space is freaking huge, and we’re not. Once you’re off Earth, you’re quickly off the internet, too. We rely a lot on physical closeness.
Mars isn't real. The other planets and stars and space in general was created by God to test our faith. I think people will realize this when they blast off towards Mars and just hit a wall and come back to Earth.

User avatar
chuckdee

26 Jul 2018, 06:25

vivalarevolución wrote:
chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote:
Tribalism isn't a problem now? Is that a joke? Tribalism is still alive and strong. The Age of Enlightenment and fact seeking are out. Now it's all about what's best for my tribe or whatever the tribal leaders say.
I'm not saying Tribalism isn't a problem. Looking back, I didn't state that clearly enough. Tribalism just isn't a problem in terms of elections in any way that an Electoral College actually solves. What problem today is solved by the Electoral College? Before, it was in the way of access- that's what I meant. If the community didn't think that voting was important, then most people didn't take the time nor the effort to do so. Also, the smaller communities weren't deemed to be important, and states' issues were not taken into consideration. That part isn't a problem anymore- at least I haven't seen it to be.
The Electoral College solves the problem of having to actually do nationwide campaigning and creating a political platform that has to appeal to more than white people in a few metro areas in swing states.

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
And that's a good thing? They should have to campaign to America, not just to a few swing states, IMO. You think that the existence of a few swing states is a good thing? That seems to marginalize people more than not having it would.

User avatar
vometia
irritant

26 Jul 2018, 07:33

Muirium wrote: May is awful. And every other Tory scheming to knife her is even worse.
She is terrible, her one saving grace being that she's not as evil as Cameron, though she is as incompetent and I think it shows the paucity of talent that such an utterly useless blob as May has managed to hang on to power for so long. Well, and Call-Me-Dave before her.

Same deal with Corbyn, for that matter, though he does seem to have this slightly resigned air of "well if nobody else will do it..." I guess he's the product of Blue Labour becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the Tories and the Lib Dems feeling duty bound to position themselves in the middle, or at least so they claim and it being nothing to do with their senior members all coming from the same establishment.

It's hard to know what to make of Corbyn since the media are all part of the same neoliberal clique so they'll bad mouth him regardless.

As far as the word "liberal" is concerned, it does seem to cause confusion since it has so many meanings depending on which demographic and a host of other things. In the US sense it typically means socially liberal which often doesn't give much indication of the overall politics, which in the case of the Democrats still seems to be very much to the right; in a lot of political discourse it seems to refer to "classic liberalism", which being economic liberalism again very much to the political right; and historically in the UK it meant the Liberal Party who at least on the face of it were too nice and indecisive to form strong enough opinions to upset anyone.

Of course the word "right wing" is similarly afflicted and nowadays means whatever someone wants it to mean: I'm talking about the economic scale of liberalism from regulation for corporations, though a knock-on effect of that seems to be that bored legislators are very much anti-liberalism for the average person which is probably why it's come to be associated with authoritarianism with a somewhat fascist bent.

I dunno. Politics in the UK seems to be pretty moribund now, probably because of too many years spent pandering to a highly toxic media, which is probably the worst thing about this country. Fortunately it's becoming increasingly irrelevant in the information age, but it seems determined to cause as much damage as possible while it falls.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

26 Jul 2018, 13:49

chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote:
chuckdee wrote:
I'm not saying Tribalism isn't a problem. Looking back, I didn't state that clearly enough. Tribalism just isn't a problem in terms of elections in any way that an Electoral College actually solves. What problem today is solved by the Electoral College? Before, it was in the way of access- that's what I meant. If the community didn't think that voting was important, then most people didn't take the time nor the effort to do so. Also, the smaller communities weren't deemed to be important, and states' issues were not taken into consideration. That part isn't a problem anymore- at least I haven't seen it to be.
The Electoral College solves the problem of having to actually do nationwide campaigning and creating a political platform that has to appeal to more than white people in a few metro areas in swing states.

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
And that's a good thing? They should have to campaign to America, not just to a few swing states, IMO. You think that the existence of a few swing states is a good thing? That seems to marginalize people more than not having it would.
It's a good thing for the parties and works to their advantage. But for the people and America in general, no, it's not a good thing.

User avatar
chuckdee

26 Jul 2018, 15:13

vivalarevolución wrote:
chuckdee wrote:
vivalarevolución wrote: The Electoral College solves the problem of having to actually do nationwide campaigning and creating a political platform that has to appeal to more than white people in a few metro areas in swing states.

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
And that's a good thing? They should have to campaign to America, not just to a few swing states, IMO. You think that the existence of a few swing states is a good thing? That seems to marginalize people more than not having it would.
It's a good thing for the parties and works to their advantage. But for the people and America in general, no, it's not a good thing.
So it's not solving a problem as much as it's enabling the status quo, in regards to most of us in the country.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-topic”