Author Topic: Voting  (Read 57945 times)

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Voting
« Reply #150 on: November 09, 2016, 03:00:58 PM »
For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected.

Hahahha!  Look how wrong you were!

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

Sure looks to me like third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump.  We'll have to wait for the final vote counts to know for sure.
How did you determine that third party voters would have voted for Hillary instead of Trump?

Seriously. That's a hopelessly naive outlook. Angry, rural white people handed this election to Trump.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #151 on: November 09, 2016, 03:37:08 PM »
Angry, rural white people handed this election to Trump.

Let's not leave out Russian intelligence, the FBI, and the KKK, who actively worked to elect Trump, and black and Hispanic voters, who failed to show up to vote.

Also Breitbart news and the rest of the alternative media that pushed blatant lies about Clinton, they had something to do with it too.

Also Hillary, who was too policy focused and not very personable, who lost by speaking to the electorate's intellect instead of their basest bigoted instincts. 

You're not wrong, I just think you left out some contributors.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Voting
« Reply #152 on: November 09, 2016, 05:11:32 PM »
Angry, rural white people handed this election to Trump.

Let's not leave out Russian intelligence, the FBI, and the KKK, who actively worked to elect Trump, and black and Hispanic voters, who failed to show up to vote.

Also Breitbart news and the rest of the alternative media that pushed blatant lies about Clinton, they had something to do with it too.

Also Hillary, who was too policy focused and not very personable, who lost by speaking to the electorate's intellect instead of their basest bigoted instincts. 

You're not wrong, I just think you left out some contributors.
Well, I would have to include middle class white voters who "weren't excited" about Hillary. Not gonna lie. Blaming the minorities is beneath you, Sol.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Voting
« Reply #153 on: November 09, 2016, 05:15:04 PM »
Let's not leave out Russian intelligence, the FBI, and the KKK, who actively worked to elect Trump, and black and Hispanic voters, who failed to show up to vote.

And the DNC, who failed to field a candidate black and Hispanic voters thought was worth voting for.

retiringearly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Voting
« Reply #154 on: November 09, 2016, 07:26:05 PM »
Angry, rural white people handed this election to Trump.

Let's not leave out Russian intelligence, the FBI, and the KKK, who actively worked to elect Trump, and black and Hispanic voters, who failed to show up to vote.

Also Breitbart news and the rest of the alternative media that pushed blatant lies about Clinton, they had something to do with it too.

Also Hillary, who was too policy focused and not very personable, who lost by speaking to the electorate's intellect instead of their basest bigoted instincts. 

You're not wrong, I just think you left out some contributors.
What blatant lies did Breitbart push about Clinton?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #155 on: November 09, 2016, 07:30:13 PM »
What blatant lies did Breitbart push about Clinton?

That she had six months to live? 

More, if you're genuinely interested:  http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Voting
« Reply #156 on: November 09, 2016, 07:31:26 PM »
Angry, rural white people handed this election to Trump.

Let's not leave out Russian intelligence, the FBI, and the KKK, who actively worked to elect Trump, and black and Hispanic voters, who failed to show up to vote.


Those poor minorities just can't catch a break. Even blaming them for a Trump victory. Ouch.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Voting
« Reply #157 on: November 09, 2016, 07:32:16 PM »
What blatant lies did Breitbart push about Clinton?
That she had six months to live? 

More, if you're genuinely interested:  http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/


Yeesh. I'm hoping that was a genuine question, and not a rhetorical scoff at the suggestion that Breitbart could be peddling untruths.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 06:20:01 AM by Mississippi Mudstache »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #158 on: November 09, 2016, 07:34:01 PM »
Blaming the minorities is beneath you, Sol.

I'm not blaming them, I'm just highlighted that they turned out in lower numbers than in previous elections.  Similarly, white voters turned out in high numbers than in previous elections.  Both groups contributed to this election's outcome, of course, but you had already highlighted the white vote and I was trying to point out that other groups also bear responsibility.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Voting
« Reply #159 on: November 09, 2016, 07:44:50 PM »
Blaming the minorities is beneath you, Sol.

I'm not blaming them, I'm just highlighted that they turned out in lower numbers than in previous elections.  Similarly, white voters turned out in high numbers than in previous elections.  Both groups contributed to this election's outcome, of course, but you had already highlighted the white vote and I was trying to point out that other groups also bear responsibility.
I take your point (although I wasn't involved in the discussion before), but voter turnout was low among urban white voters, as well. It was Democratic voters who didn't come through.

retiringearly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Voting
« Reply #160 on: November 10, 2016, 05:34:36 AM »
What blatant lies did Breitbart push about Clinton?

Yeesh. I'm hoping that was a genuine question, and not a rhetorical scoff at the suggestion that Breitbart could be peddling untruths.

That she had six months to live? 

More, if you're genuinely interested:  http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/
Yeah, I am hoping you know that Snopes has been proven to have errors in it.

Sol, any chance you will spell out how you determined that third party voters would have voted for Hillary and not Trump?  That will be fascinating.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #161 on: November 10, 2016, 08:36:41 AM »
Yeah, I am hoping you know that Snopes has been proven to have errors in it.

Classic.

You asked for a reference to Breitbart peddling blatant lies.  I gave you a whole detailed list with links to sources, and rather than recognize a single one of them you immediately question the veracity of the criticisms while staunchly defending Breitbart from any wrongdoing.  You are the blindest sort of blind.

What evidence would it take to convince you that Snoes, a site dedicated to debunking internet lies, is more truthful than Breitbart, a site dedicated to made-up news stories?  I think there is absolutely nothing that could convince you of this.

Quote
Sol, any chance you will spell out how you determined that third party voters would have voted for Hillary and not Trump?

I didn't determine anything of the sort.  How did you determine they wouldn't?

But if we were to assume that the breakdown of third party voters was roughly the same as the rest of the electorate (about 50-50 but slightly in Hillary's favor), then you can reasonably assume that any state that was decided by a margin smaller than half of the percentage that voted third party was swayed by third party voters.

Example:  If Trump got 100k votes and Clinton got 99k votes and Johnson got 4k votes, then there were theoretically 2k people who would have preferred Clinton in a two way race, but voted for Johnson instead.  Those people could have given Clinton the state, had they not voted for Johnson.  They elected their least-favorite candidate by voting for their favorite candidate over their second favorite candidate.

retiringearly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Voting
« Reply #162 on: November 10, 2016, 12:42:34 PM »
For most voters, it is more likely that their vote will make a difference by helping a third party gain access to Presidential Election Campaign Fund grants than making a difference in which major party candidate is elected.

Hahahha!  Look how wrong you were!

How many states did Clinton lose by margins smaller than the libertarians took?  Was it every single one?

Sure looks to me like third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump.  We'll have to wait for the final vote counts to know for sure.
How did you determine that third party voters would have voted for Hillary instead of Trump?
Sol, you stated that "third party voters absolutely handed this election to Trump. "

Perhaps I am not interpreting your words correctly, but that would mean you think that Hillary would have been elected if they did not vote third party.

Help me out here with an explanation, I must be slow today.




Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Voting
« Reply #163 on: November 11, 2016, 01:47:26 AM »


Quote
Sol, any chance you will spell out how you determined that third party voters would have voted for Hillary and not Trump?

I didn't determine anything of the sort.  How did you determine they wouldn't?

But if we were to assume that the breakdown of third party voters was roughly the same as the rest of the electorate (about 50-50 but slightly in Hillary's favor), then you can reasonably assume that any state that was decided by a margin smaller than half of the percentage that voted third party was swayed by third party voters.

Example:  If Trump got 100k votes and Clinton got 99k votes and Johnson got 4k votes, then there were theoretically 2k people who would have preferred Clinton in a two way race, but voted for Johnson instead.  Those people could have given Clinton the state, had they not voted for Johnson.  They elected their least-favorite candidate by voting for their favorite candidate over their second favorite candidate.

Wait... in that theoretical 2-way race, would we not also award 2K votes to Trump as well, leaving the totals at 101K Clinton to 102K Trump? Same result...

Are there any states where this was actually the case?

retiringearly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Voting
« Reply #164 on: November 11, 2016, 08:19:32 PM »
This is why Trump won the election.  I have no idea who this guy is, but he gets it.  He nailed it.

https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs



retiringearly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Voting
« Reply #165 on: November 11, 2016, 08:21:21 PM »


Quote
Sol, any chance you will spell out how you determined that third party voters would have voted for Hillary and not Trump?

I didn't determine anything of the sort.  How did you determine they wouldn't?

But if we were to assume that the breakdown of third party voters was roughly the same as the rest of the electorate (about 50-50 but slightly in Hillary's favor), then you can reasonably assume that any state that was decided by a margin smaller than half of the percentage that voted third party was swayed by third party voters.

Example:  If Trump got 100k votes and Clinton got 99k votes and Johnson got 4k votes, then there were theoretically 2k people who would have preferred Clinton in a two way race, but voted for Johnson instead.  Those people could have given Clinton the state, had they not voted for Johnson.  They elected their least-favorite candidate by voting for their favorite candidate over their second favorite candidate.

Wait... in that theoretical 2-way race, would we not also award 2K votes to Trump as well, leaving the totals at 101K Clinton to 102K Trump? Same result...

Are there any states where this was actually the case?
Thanks.  You said it better than I did.

There are many "intellectuals" on here that consider themselves to be geniuses but are not.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Voting
« Reply #166 on: November 12, 2016, 07:08:53 AM »


Quote
Sol, any chance you will spell out how you determined that third party voters would have voted for Hillary and not Trump?

I didn't determine anything of the sort.  How did you determine they wouldn't?

But if we were to assume that the breakdown of third party voters was roughly the same as the rest of the electorate (about 50-50 but slightly in Hillary's favor), then you can reasonably assume that any state that was decided by a margin smaller than half of the percentage that voted third party was swayed by third party voters.

Example:  If Trump got 100k votes and Clinton got 99k votes and Johnson got 4k votes, then there were theoretically 2k people who would have preferred Clinton in a two way race, but voted for Johnson instead.  Those people could have given Clinton the state, had they not voted for Johnson.  They elected their least-favorite candidate by voting for their favorite candidate over their second favorite candidate.

Wait... in that theoretical 2-way race, would we not also award 2K votes to Trump as well, leaving the totals at 101K Clinton to 102K Trump? Same result...

Are there any states where this was actually the case?

This argument presupposes that Libertarians were equally as likely to vote Trump as Clinton.  Given that Trump's policies were neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal there is at least some reason to believe believes otherwise.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #167 on: November 12, 2016, 09:43:48 AM »
Wait... in that theoretical 2-way race, would we not also award 2K votes to Trump as well, leaving the totals at 101K Clinton to 102K Trump? Same result...

You're missing the point, and I even gave you a numerical example.

In a state where the R/D vote totals are very close enough, then there will always be some third party votes who could have swayed the election.  There is a group of people who would have preferred Clinton to Trump, who knew that Johnson wasn't going to win, and who effectively elected Trump by voting for Johnson.  It doesn't matter if it's half of the third party voters or all of them or one of them, it's more than zero.

This argument presupposes that Libertarians were equally as likely to vote Trump as Clinton.

I know you're trying to back me up here, but no it doesn't.  I'm not saying ALL third party voters elected Trump.  I'm saying that there is a subset of third party voters who elected their least favorite candidate because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for their second favorite candidate over their favorite one (who was guaranteed to lose).  In a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania where the vote was virtually tied, that's always going to be true for some people regardless of which candidate wins the state and which candidate wins the Presidency.

I'm not blaming the third party candidate for splitting the vote and influencing the election.  I'm blaming third party voters who failed to accurately read the electoral voting game, and ended up voting against their own interests.  Ranked preference voting would make that clear, but since each person only gets vote for one person, it's not always obvious how to get what you really want.

cwide

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Voting
« Reply #168 on: November 12, 2016, 10:06:03 AM »
I'm not blaming the third party candidate for splitting the vote and influencing the election.  I'm blaming third party voters who failed to accurately read the electoral voting game, and ended up voting against their own interests.  Ranked preference voting would make that clear, but since each person only gets vote for one person, it's not always obvious how to get what you really want.

Anyone blaming people who voted third party for their candidate's loss needs to get a better candidate.  You earn votes.

I'm worried this election was just another hit to third party viability. The only way to change that is to replace first past the post with something inclusive.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #169 on: November 12, 2016, 10:29:56 AM »
Anyone blaming people who voted third party for their candidate's loss needs to get a better candidate. 

Is anyone listening?  It's not about the candidates, it's about an electoral system that doesn't accurately measure what people actually want.  Our current system penalizes some third party voters by giving them their worst choice if they vote for their best choice.  It's deliberately designed to make it hard for them to vote in a way that genuinely supports their preferences. 

Quote
The only way to change that is to replace first past the post with something inclusive.

Exactly.  Now we're on the same page.

cwide

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Voting
« Reply #170 on: November 12, 2016, 12:05:29 PM »
Anyone blaming people who voted third party for their candidate's loss needs to get a better candidate. 

Is anyone listening?  It's not about the candidates, it's about an electoral system that doesn't accurately measure what people actually want.  Our current system penalizes some third party voters by giving them their worst choice if they vote for their best choice.  It's deliberately designed to make it hard for them to vote in a way that genuinely supports their preferences. 

Quote
The only way to change that is to replace first past the post with something inclusive.

Exactly.  Now we're on the same page.

The problem is the only people who would ever listen to changing the voting system are those who are no longer in power. It won't be changed by DC because it keeps both parties in power. It won't be changed by most state governments for the same reason. So you're only hope is for a giant national movement. It's hard to get people excited about an alternative voting system. People support it when asked, but nobody is taking to the streets over it.

Let's hope Ranked Choice Voting is wildly popular in Maine, who just passed it. I could see similar states like CO and NH trying it soon if a terrible mid-term governor gets elected. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Voting
« Reply #171 on: November 12, 2016, 12:07:07 PM »
The problem is the only people who would ever listen to changing the voting system are those who are no longer in power.

We have the same problem with congressional term limits.  Why would our elected representatives ever vote to give themselves less power?

cwide

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Voting
« Reply #172 on: November 12, 2016, 12:18:48 PM »
The problem is the only people who would ever listen to changing the voting system are those who are no longer in power.

We have the same problem with congressional term limits.  Why would our elected representatives ever vote to give themselves less power?

Or campaign finance reform. Or executive overreach.

I would only support term limits if our system isn't going to change. I think it's slightly undemocratic (but could probably be convinced otherwise, just haven't heard a good argument yet). I don't like to idea of getting rid of experienced politicians with high approval ratings just because we think they occasionally lose touch. If people like their choice, they should be able to keep it. People are only supporting term limits right now because districts are not appropriately represented due to gerrymandering and lack of choice, which goes back to our original argument of fixing the voting system. Can't fix the voting system without fixing the money in politics problem. Can't fix the money in politics problem without a huge grassroots movement. We have to knock over the first, seemingly unmovable domino.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Voting
« Reply #173 on: November 12, 2016, 12:24:52 PM »
Wait... in that theoretical 2-way race, would we not also award 2K votes to Trump as well, leaving the totals at 101K Clinton to 102K Trump? Same result...

You're missing the point, and I even gave you a numerical example.

In a state where the R/D vote totals are very close enough, then there will always be some third party votes who could have swayed the election.  There is a group of people who would have preferred Clinton to Trump, who knew that Johnson wasn't going to win, and who effectively elected Trump by voting for Johnson.  It doesn't matter if it's half of the third party voters or all of them or one of them, it's more than zero.

This argument presupposes that Libertarians were equally as likely to vote Trump as Clinton.

I know you're trying to back me up here, but no it doesn't.  I'm not saying ALL third party voters elected Trump.  I'm saying that there is a subset of third party voters who elected their least favorite candidate because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for their second favorite candidate over their favorite one (who was guaranteed to lose).  In a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania where the vote was virtually tied, that's always going to be true for some people regardless of which candidate wins the state and which candidate wins the Presidency.

I'm not blaming the third party candidate for splitting the vote and influencing the election.  I'm blaming third party voters who failed to accurately read the electoral voting game, and ended up voting against their own interests.  Ranked preference voting would make that clear, but since each person only gets vote for one person, it's not always obvious how to get what you really want.

I guess ranked voting would be one solution to this almost non problem. One could just as easily argue that all Clinton supporters  should have voted Johnson, then he would have won, but by voting for their favorite candidate they elected their least favorite candidate.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Voting
« Reply #174 on: November 30, 2016, 01:09:24 PM »
I'm not saying ALL third party voters elected Trump.  I'm saying that there is a subset of third party voters who elected their least favorite candidate because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for their second favorite candidate over their favorite one (who was guaranteed to lose).  In a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania where the vote was virtually tied, that's always going to be true for some people regardless of which candidate wins the state and which candidate wins the Presidency.

I'm not blaming the third party candidate for splitting the vote and influencing the election.  I'm blaming third party voters who failed to accurately read the electoral voting game, and ended up voting against their own interests. 

I agree with you 100%.