Jump to content

Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 1

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Zoraptor
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)?

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.4bf61bd9356fa5d1a55516e6c0b2a3be.png

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 😇

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :p

  

25 minutes ago, Elerond said:

image.png.4bf61bd9356fa5d1a55516e6c0b2a3be.png

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? :p

Edited by majestic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...