By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 10 January 2021
Zkuq said:
JWeinCom said:

The electoral process doesn't represent the will of the people and it's assumed will. That's a completely conclusory statement. That's what the argument is about.

If you have an argument that it is a better indication of the will of the people than the popular vote, then go for it. But, the electoral college was largely designed the balance the will of the people and federalist ideals and a distrust of the unwashed masses. It was a compromise to get to the states to agree to a unified federal government among other concerns. It was not designed because they felt that electing slates of electors in each state who would then be allowed to vote for the president and if nobody got to 270 Congress decides by state delegation was the best way to the implement will of the people.

Not sure how exactly you can get from Trump getting less votes than Hillary to Trump winning being the will of the people. It's a will of the minority that somehow becomes official due to a framework created by a group of people who really weren't very into direct democracy.

I'm not Pemalite, but since I'm such a nitpicker, here we go... Of course the electoral process represents the will of the people and its assumed will. It's debatable how well it does, but it most certainly does represent it somehow. We can debate how well my (imaginary) drawing of you represents the way you look, but it represents it nonetheless. Anyway, I'm just pointing out the difference between representing the will of the people and being the will of the people.

That said, personally I'm not sure how fruitful it is to even talk about the 'actual' will of the people because it seems like a fairly complicated thing. If we limit 'will' to just picking an option (often, such as in a presidential election, a candidate), maybe, but it we go to what different options actually represent, it might already differ from what people actually want (see. e.g. some people who voted for Brexit and later changed their mind because they didn't know what they voted for). Even if we assume that everyone always picks the option that best represents what they want, it's debatable what 'the will of the people' means. What if roughly half the people support one option and the other half support the other option, which is completely opposite? Surely 'the will of the people' cannot be what roughly half the people oppose? In common language, it often seems to be, but personally I'm not a fan of talking about a singular 'will of the people' because of how gross it is as a simplification.

Errrrrr... that certainly is nitpicky. I think we could reasonably infer that represents means "accurately represents". If his point was simply that the electoral college bears some relationship to the will of the people, then that would be technically correct, but pretty pointless.

It's complicated, so yeah, we have to simplify. Of the metrics we have available, the best snapshot in terms of the "will of the people" on who should be president is the popular vote. Even that's not perfect, but it's the best we have as far as I know. 



Around the Network
Zkuq on 10 January 2021
JWeinCom said:

Errrrrr... that certainly is nitpicky. I think we could reasonably infer that represents means "accurately represents". If his point was simply that the electoral college bears some relationship to the will of the people, then that would be technically correct, but pretty pointless.

Considering his posts, I'm not sure we can infer that - and I'm not fully willing to take that stance even otherwise since we're going even this deep into details here. If this discussion was on a very high level, perhaps, but on this level it seems like a recipe for misunderstandings sooner or later. Anyway, that's my two cents; You're free to disagree if you want, and I imagine it's not a huge deal anyway so whatever. Like we both said: nitpicking.



Chrkeller on 10 January 2021
drkohler said:
Chrkeller said:

Many republicans in New York and California don't vote, because it is all or nothing Electoral College.

That obviously is complete bullshit. If you look at the house races, several seats flipped from blue to red (which could actually imply the exact oppsite).

Not at all.  I have lived in different states as a result of my career.  Depending on the state and how strongly it leans (not just state but district as well) it can be very discouraging to vote.  Moving from Electoral College (all or nothing) to popular votes ensures all votes count, which would change behavior.  

To be clear I don't know that the behavior would alter the results, I don't know if it would lean in one direction or the other.  So to be clear I am not suggesting Trump would have won the popular vote.  But rather I am suggesting that if we change the voting system it would not only change voting behavior change but would also change campaign strategy.  I think it is false to automatically assume a change in system would translate to the same results. 

And with all due respect, I have lived in the USA my entire life.  And I have lived in a wide variety of States within the US.  According to your profile you live in Switzerland....  out of curiosity what makes you more knowledge about US voting behavior than I?  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 10 January 2021

Chrkeller on 10 January 2021
JWeinCom said:
Chrkeller said:

If we moved from Electoral College to popular vote, people should not assume voting behavior would not change. Many republicans in New York and California don't vote, because it is all or nothing Electoral College. If we change to popular vote, they would suddenly vote. Point being, somebody who won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote cannot be assumed that under a different voting system the results would be the same.

Different voting system = different voting behavior 

I think the Apple comment was addressed towards me. 

On topic, many republicans don't vote in NY because it's all or nothing... but that's if they only care about the presidential race and nothing on the ballot. Which some do.

But a lot of democrats don't vote because they think they'll win no matter what. Overall, I'd say the all or nothing system probably depresses the winning side turn out more. Simply because in NY as a whole for instance, there are more democrats and I would expect the amount of "fuck it my vote doesn't matter" people are going to be proportionately the same on each side.

Very possible, and really only serves my point.  A change to the system is likely to change behavior (and campaign strategy).  I am not against moving to a popular vote.  I merely think people are making a lot of assumptions about the results of a straight popular vote.  

My New York and California was only meant to serve as an example.  It wasn't intended to imply the right would benefit from a popular vote.

More than anything I speak from personal experience.  When I lived in swing states I voted for President.  When I lived in strongly affiliated states, I skipped voting for the President, because my vote wasn't going to matter.  If we move to a popular vote, yeah I will vote for the President every election.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 10 January 2021

Pemalite on 10 January 2021
Peh said:
Pemalite said:

We can only base my statements on what I actually stated and nothing else.
To misconstrue it any other way is to twist my original intention to suit whatever agenda someone has, which is blatantly misleading.

The Electoral process in the US still represents the people and it's assumed will.

Dude, words are open for interpretation, especially if the context and phrasing is not clear enough. I wanted to clarify what Vivs was aiming for. I've noticed on this board that you got a talent of misinterpreting someones post and drag it into an unecessary condenscending debate. 

Then you misinterpreted.
Seems like it's a case of "always someone elses fault".

Peh said:

So, look at this: "Electoral process in the US still represents the people" <- It does not represent the majority of people. That's the whole point. 

Once someone is elected it actually represents *all* the people, they are the figurehead, they are representing the nation, they are the elected official.
Divisional politics doesn't get a country very far... And one could argue is the reason why the USA is in the current state that it is.

Now the way the representational democratic voting system works is constantly under scrutiny in the USA... Is it perfect? No. As a leader with less votes can still win an election.
But it doesn't change the fact that Trump was elected, Trump still had a crazy amount of support counting in 10's of millions and had high 40's percentages in the election favoring him.

The issue isn't me as a poster, which you seem to be taking issue with.
I have very strong conservative values on many topics such as border control (Which you can see in the political spectrum quiz), but Trump was the leader the United States wanted and had to have in order to learn and grow and "try something different".

We are done with that experiment however and it's time to move on, but we cannot downplay the support Trump had and still has to this very day.

Peh said:

If you say "voted by the people", you have to exclude everyone who cannot vote. In which that statement "Trump was elected for the people, by the people" becomes less correct. 

There is nothing to add for further conversation and I am also done with it. 

Not everyone in the USA votes, because unlike here... It's optional. But that doesn't change my point one iota.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
TallSilhouette on 10 January 2021

^ Was gonna say, I think that says more about Trumpists than it does about big tech.



Cobretti2 on 10 January 2021
Hiku said:

"Deplatforming hate groups doesn't work. They'll just go somewhere else."

Also:

If you can't use social media without inciting violence, etc, then there's something wrong with you.

This is funny because it is like people forgot you can use a web browser on your phone and go to the site lol.



 

 

Cobretti2 on 10 January 2021
Hiku said:
Cobretti2 said:

This is funny because it is like people forgot you can use a web browser on your phone and go to the site lol.

If I understand correctly, Amazon was hosting the domain, or something like that. And they dropped them after they refused to implement moderation, and let comments like this run rampant:

Wow that is some crazy shit. Guess now I know where all the nutters are. I think they will find a new home tbh, look at some of the other crazy shit that is on the internet. If it doesn't find a new home does it mean a from of this will end up on the dark web if it isn't already.  Well this is far worst that I thought. America is not just fractured but separated by a huge crack and I don't know how they will get reunited again. Somehow American's need to learn that politics isn't the be all and end all to your actual life and at the end of the day try to vote in the lesser of the two evils.



 

 

Bofferbrauer2 on 10 January 2021
Hiku said:
Cobretti2 said:

This is funny because it is like people forgot you can use a web browser on your phone and go to the site lol.

If I understand correctly, Amazon was hosting the domain, or something like that. And they dropped them after they refused to implement moderation, and let comments like this run rampant:

Ugh, those posts are truly disgusting. Not even the wild west was that lawless. Yet they see themselves as the party of law and order...



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Zkuq on 10 January 2021
Cobretti2 said:

Wow that is some crazy shit. Guess now I know where all the nutters are. I think they will find a new home tbh, look at some of the other crazy shit that is on the internet. If it doesn't find a new home does it mean a from of this will end up on the dark web if it isn't already.  Well this is far worst that I thought. America is not just fractured but separated by a huge crack and I don't know how they will get reunited again. Somehow American's need to learn that politics isn't the be all and end all to your actual life and at the end of the day try to vote in the lesser of the two evils.

'A new home' might not be viable though, since anything similar that gets popular faces the exact same threat. You need to be able to communicate using mainstream channels to be able to reach wider audiences, and if you're not reaching wider audiences, you're marginalized. Assuming that most people supporting these extremists are not extermists themselves, this might actually do a great deal to mend this huge crack you mention. It won't be enough, but this might give a chance, which someone will then have to take.