Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!

[Keyrock]

Black sharpie is the new hanging chad? 

[Amentep]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Well or for Kanye.

A vote for a random someone (or a fictional character) can be read in a lot of ways, so there's still meaning there regardless of the inability to 'win'.  I think there's a history with celebrities (even when they didn't officially announce) garnering votes.

But there's no way to distinguish an uncast vote. Was it uncast because no candidate was liked or the voter couldn't be bothered? Who can say?

[Malcador]

6 minutes ago, Amentep said:

A vote for a random someone (or a fictional character) can be read in a lot of ways, so there's still meaning there regardless of the inability to 'win'.  I think there's a history with celebrities (even when they didn't officially announce) garnering votes.

But there's no way to distinguish an uncast vote. Was it uncast because no candidate was liked or the voter couldn't be bothered? Who can say?

I suppose, but a vote for something not there is a waste, you'd might as well have abstained and saved the paper.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Malcador

[Amentep]

If you abstain, is it a protest against the system, or laziness?  At least if you write in some rando you've recorded your disatisfaction.

[Malcador]

4 minutes ago, Amentep said:

If you abstain, is it a protest against the system, or laziness?  At least if you write in some rando you've recorded your disatisfaction.

True enough.

[Skarpen]

[Malcador]

Star Citizen's release is so ephemeral no one even jokes about it.

[InsaneCommander]

4 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Be patient. The military doesn't allow the aliens to leave area 51 so they have to vote by mail.

If only they had successfully stormed the place last year...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

A vote for a random someone (or a fictional character) can be read in a lot of ways, so there's still meaning there regardless of the inability to 'win'.  I think there's a history with celebrities (even when they didn't officially announce) garnering votes.

But there's no way to distinguish an uncast vote. Was it uncast because no candidate was liked or the voter couldn't be bothered? Who can say?

All of which speaks to the larger point of "politicians only listen to people who either do vote or are likely to vote". Not voting to "send a message" accomplishes absolutely nothing (other than to give more power to the people who do vote).

[Raithe]

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, KaineParker said:

If you view minor party voters as disaffected Republicans or Democrats who are still invested in keeping the big other out of office, then viewing votes for Jorgenson or Hawkins as throwing the vote away is consistent. The error is in assuming that minor party voters are disaffected Rs or Ds and not people outside such parties but still devoted to electoral politics. Given how GD declares eternal loyalty to the Libertarian Party bimonthly and how ComradeMaster pines for Jesse Ventura to run as a Green this board should understand that, but videogame enthusiasts probably do better fact checking than professional pundits.

I tend to assume that most professional pundits are either literally or effectively paid to hold whatever view they hold, since there's a vast difference between being a pundit and an expert. Maybe not directly paid; but you're a lot more likely to be asked for your opinion and get a position in a think tank, panel show, exposure for your website etc if the person asking the questions can be guaranteed they're going to like what you say, or like the clicks you bring in.

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

A vote for a random someone (or a fictional character) can be read in a lot of ways, so there's still meaning there regardless of the inability to 'win'.  I think there's a history with celebrities (even when they didn't officially announce) garnering votes.

What is really needed is a specific 'no confidence' option rather than generic ballot spoiling or write in votes for novelty 'candidates'.

2017 French Presidential election; 1 out of 8 people (4 million in absolute terms) who bothered to turn up and choose between oleaginous corporate lickspittle Macron or odious crypto-ish fascist Le Pen chose to spoil their ballots instead, and that's in addition to the extra 4 million people who didn't vote at all compared to 2012's contest. That certainly didn't stop media trumpeting Macron's 'landslide' victory as a triumph of democracy though.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

What is really needed is a specific 'no confidence' option rather than generic ballot spoiling or write in votes for novelty 'candidates'.

Help me understand what this would accomplish (in a practical way)?

[InsaneCommander]

[LadyCrimson]

If/when it's Biden, are we taking bets whether he'll survive his first term? Because rumor has it that he's, y'know, kinda old.

At least his VP seems all right and didn't/doesn't set off major alarm bells for me.

[Hurlshort]

Kamala Harris is great. But she posted a clip about equity so she.may be a communist. 

[Gfted1]

9 minutes ago, LadyCrimson said:

At least his VP seems all right and didn't/doesn't set off major alarm bells for me.

Fingers crossed.  Im ready for the checks to start rolling in!

[Malcador]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/long-odds-trump-defense-secretary-esper-has-prepared-resignation-letter-n1245846

I guess not major, surprised took Mr "Battlespace" Esper this long.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

9 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Help me understand what this would accomplish (in a practical way)?

In a practical way, nothing. But there are reasons other than practical results for doing things.

In a practical way, voting for a 3rd party candidate also achieves nothing in the US system (and despite having proportional representation even more votes, approaching 10%, were 'wasted' that way here too), in a practical way voting Trump in California achieves nothing since he won't win there or voting Biden in Wyoming achieves nothing since he won't win there; in a practical way this post and the one I'm replying to achieves nothing either. Doesn't mean that any of them wasn't worth doing though, even if they don't change anything, practically.

A formalised 'no confidence' option allows a gauge of those who are disengaged from the political process due to thinking the candidates- or electoral system- are awful but who would like to be engaged, and allows them to express their opinion without going into a generic 'spoiled' category that most will presume to be from people who cannot tie their shoelaces/ shirts button up down their back/ cannot successfully tick whatever box they really wanted to, rather than being a protest. That may not be much use practically, but in the more... figurative sense the purpose of elections is to allow people to express their feelings about who should lead them; and that certainly includes being able to express that none of the candidates are suitable, or that the process itself is broken. Which, for some reason, isn't a very appealing prospect for politicians.

[Raithe]

 

[Raithe]

56 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

A formalised 'no confidence' option allows a gauge of those who are disengaged from the political process due to thinking the candidates- or electoral system- are awful but who would like to be engaged, and allows them to express their opinion without going into a generic 'spoiled' category that most will presume to be from people who cannot tie their shoelaces/ shirts button up down their back/ cannot successfully tick whatever box they really wanted to, rather than being a protest. That may not be much use practically, but in the more... figurative sense the purpose of elections is to allow people to express their feelings about who should lead them; and that certainly includes being able to express that none of the candidates are suitable, or that the process itself is broken. Which, for some reason, isn't a very appealing prospect for politicians.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

A formalised 'no confidence' option allows a gauge of those who are disengaged from the political process due to thinking the candidates- or electoral system- are awful but who would like to be engaged, and allows them to express their opinion without going into a generic 'spoiled' category that most will presume to be from people who cannot tie their shoelaces/ shirts button up down their back/ cannot successfully tick whatever box they really wanted to, rather than being a protest. That may not be much use practically, but in the more... figurative sense the purpose of elections is to allow people to express their feelings about who should lead them; and that certainly includes being able to express that none of the candidates are suitable, or that the process itself is broken. Which, for some reason, isn't a very appealing prospect for politicians.

If I'm an elected politician, I'm focused on keeping my constituency happy so that I can stay in office.

If Action X makes 30% of the people I represent happy, but pisses off the other 70%, then not taking it makes sense but only if I know I face a real political consequence for doing so.

If Action X makes 30% of the people happy and every single one of them votes, while only some of the other 70% will, then it absolutely makes sense for me to take Action X.

Every single person in that other 70% can vote "no confidence" and I'm still safe as houses so long as I'm keeping my 30% happy.

It's not until voters coalesce around another candidate who can garner 31% or more that I face any real threat. And if the only vehicle they are using to attempt this is a mark on a ballot every couple of years or some white-hot memes on social media, then it's entirely possible that I could die in office before that threat materializes.

[Darkpriest]

Grab some snacks and booze

I wonder what other things people will latch onto during this process of vote counts, recounts and lawsuits

[Elerond]

Mysteriously in swing state Florida there seem to be quite lot counties where votes went only to Trump. But as they are for Trump we know there was now cheating in these republican controlled counties 

[majestic]

31 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I wonder what other things people will latch onto during this process of vote counts, recounts and lawsuits

People latch onto everything that they can which might save their world view when they see it crumbling apart. That's how you get reptoid leaders, microchips in vaccines made by Bill Gates, the mysterious servants of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan trying to eradicate the white race (like Merkel and Soros, although at least Merkel is ALSO a shapeshifting reptoid), or whatever else floats your fancy. Hollywood people keeping little children in underground bunkers to feed of their life energy, or ancient alien theories.

Well, wait, no. Ancient aliens doesn't belong there. They at least try hard. Still ridiculous, but at least they're trying. And they're fun.

  

25 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Mysteriously in swing state Florida there seem to be quite lot counties where votes went only to Trump. But as they are for Trump we know there was now cheating in these republican controlled counties 

It's only suspicious when it favors the other side. God-Emperor Cyrus reborn, Great Tangerine in Chief, Donald I of the United States simply must be re-elected else all is lost. I mean who else will bring about the rapture/apocalypse/glorious new age?

Edited November 5, 2020 by majestic

[HoonDing]

There will be faithless electors.