Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Shad_

Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Check you're insults bub.

Ok. Please stop insinuating others are dumb or lazy for working with the system rather than against it.

Edited by Nolder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nolder said:

This is rhetoric and while you're absolutely right...You can't change the system with rhetoric. Like if you convince people through rhetoric they can walk from Alaska to Russia via a landbridge they might believe it but once they get to the ocean they meet reality. The system cannot be altered by convincing people to vote third party, you must actually change the system to encourage the formation of third parties

Here's the difference.

People can vote however the hell they want. Voting differently isn't an impossible challenge to overcome.

Rhetoric can cause people to vote against Obamacare, while being overwhelmingly for the ACA. (same thing)

 

While convincing idiots to walk across the ocean could happen, they'll inevitably fail a few miles out to sea.

 

Quote

You have a much better and more realistic chance at changing the way we vote than forming a third party under first past the post.

Changing the way we vote, is entirely required for the formation of a 3rd party to take root.

One of the way's we change how we vote, is by getting people to understand that not voting D or R is still a worthwhile vote.

Convincing people of that, is far easier than trying to change the very laws that govern voting.

 

Quote

It's not worth the effort when you can just take your loss, respawn at your fire and run in again for another try from the top. I'm telling you it's more effort than its worth. If you like the idea of third parties put your effort to changing the voting system.

Have you taken down a Dark Souls boss with a sliver of life left? You can't get that thrill from any other game. There's a reason people do speed-runs of that game, at level 1, naked. 

 

Doing things the easy way, isn't the only way, or even the most worthwhile way of doing things.

 

And as above, changing how we vote, how we think about voting, is intertwined with creating a 3rd party that'll last, and not just replace the D or the R.

 

Quote

I don't know what you mean.

Were you gone for the whole Tea-Party rise up?

 

They couldn't become a 3rd party, so they ran under the (R) brand. Several took office, but ultimately they were drowned out by republicans pretending to be Tea-Party, so now it's hardly existent as any kind of party, except for some prominent members that should go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nolder said:

Ok. Please stop insinuating others are dumb or lazy for working with the system rather than against it.

Go back and re-read what I typed.

 

Quote

A vote for Johnson, was a vote for Johnson. It was not a vote for Trump or Hillary. Saying otherwise is playing their stupid game. 

I didn't say you or other's are stupid. You're reading way to much into the post. (This isn't Mafia dood) You took offense and personal slights where there weren't any meant.

To reiterate, I said that anyone who says: "A vote for a 3rd party, is a vote for the guy you hate" or "It's a wasted vote", etc. That they're playing the Democrat & Republican's stupid games. 

There is a difference. 

You, aren't stupid for playing a stupid game

The stupid game was created by the Democrats and Republicans. We the people, have to play there bullshit game.

I'd like to bust their game, and introduce a new player because I'm fed up with this circle-jerk game they've invented.

 

Note: Go up one post and read Lenlo's post.

On 4/24/2019 at 6:34 PM, Lenlo said:

Chime in here, I voted Johnson. I am aware it was effectively a vote for Trump, but considering what the DNC and Hillary did to me that year, I didn't care. I was more than willing to try to once again push a third party above the 5% line then play their stupid game.

 

In case you were wondering where the "stupid game" line came from....
 

So why aren't you offended at Lenlo for calling it a stupid game?
 

The only thing I really implied about you and other's who share the anti-3rd party rhetoric is that it's defeatist behavior.

Quote

That's just defeatist behavior.

As long you you believe, and espouse to everyone that a vote for anyone not of the two parties is just a vote for the other party, you're part of the two party problem.

Being a defeatist isn't stupid. 

It's pessimism at it's finest.

image.png.0877ad90fcced82e20c5102abf1bbe12.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that voting for someone you know isn't going to win is far more defeatist than picking the least bad of two options.  You also have the cart before the horse on the changing the game thing.  You don't get large amounts of people to do something by telling them they should, you get them to do it by giving them an incentive.  In this case, the best first step would be to adopt more representative forms of voting at the state and local levels whether that's STV or quadratic voting or something else.  You don't start a grassroots movement at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WWWwombat said:

I would say that voting for someone you know isn't going to win is far more defeatist than picking the least bad of two options.  

Nah. Look at what Lenlo said.

5% is this magic number for many people. It can't gain traction with the populous if no one ever votes for it because they know it's not going to be the winner.
Voting someone who isn't going to be a clear winner is still a win if your goal is to raise the percentage of your chosen party above 0%, while taking away from the majorities numbers.

Democracy & Voting isn't about choosing the correct winner.

 

Quote

You also have the cart before the horse on the changing the game thing.  You don't get large amounts of people to do something by telling them they should, you get them to do it by giving them an incentive.

How do you incentivise, when Democrats & Republicans hold all the power to give incentives?

I also never said that you change the game by only telling people they should. It's a multi-faceted approach.

One of those approaches, is to change the narrative of the people. To get them to stop believing that voting for anyone but a D or a R is a waste. To get people to stop believing that their vote doesn't count, so why vote? These are all ideas created over the years, and passed on by the Republicans & Democrats to keep themselves in power.

 

One of the approaches that is happening more and more every year, is 3rd party candidates are running for a variety of public offices at the state and local level.. An approach that you didn't mention at all.

 

Quote

In this case, the best first step would be to adopt more representative forms of voting at the state and local levels whether that's STV or quadratic voting or something else. 

But, how can those 3rd parties ever hope to obtain more representative forms of voting, when neither the D or the R have any interest in opening the playing field to anyone but each other? If you can't vote for them because that would be voting for a loser, then you're voting for a D or an R. And they won't vote to open it up because that's not there interest or goal.

 

Quote

You don't start a grassroots movement at the top.

And I never said it needs to start at the top.

 

It needs to unilaterally happen at every single level of government. Top Down. It tests the "establishment" and their weaknesses. It forces them to divert money towards fights they want to win more, while diverting it away from those they can afford to lose.
 

Seeing how we have many senate, house, state/county/local elections that all happen at the same time.

Taking 5% away from a president, and potentially gaining a couple of seats in congress and state offices goes a lot further than petitioning the government to change voting laws, when no one in power has any incentive to do so.

Taking 5% from the president sends a clear message to the Republican & Democrat parties.

 

You don't represent everyone, and we will take a bigger percentage away from you every 2  years.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already a bunch of municipalities that use single transferable vote to some degree, including the Twin Cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Governments_with_STV

 

I think you overestimate the unity of the two major political parties.  There are any number of factions on both the left and right that might benefit from more proportional voting methods.  I'm not saying it would be easy, but to paraphrase what Nolder said, you have a far better chance of changing the rules through the political process than you do of getting large amounts of people to adopt voting strategies that are obviously sub-optimal under the current rules.  If you want people to take 24-foot jump-shots, you don't just talk about it, you make them worth 3 points.

 

As for the 5% threshold, I don't see it as particularly significant these days given that campaign finance is drastically different from what it was a decade ago, but whatever floats your boat.  Ultimately, I don't care if people vote for 3rd party candidates or not, but to rail at pragmatism as somehow being defeatist is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nah. Look at what Lenlo said.

5% is this magic number for many people. It can't gain traction with the populous if no one ever votes for it because they know it's not going to be the winner.
Voting someone who isn't going to be a clear winner is still a win if your goal is to raise the percentage of your chosen party above 0%, while taking away from the majorities numbers.

Democracy & Voting isn't about choosing the correct winner.

5% isnt a magic number. Its the minimum required vote to be eligible, under FEC guidelines, for Public Funding in the next election. 

 

So calling it a magic number is disingenuous. There is a legitimate reason for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WWWwombat said:

  Ultimately, I don't care if people vote for 3rd party candidates or not, but to rail at pragmatism as somehow being defeatist is ridiculous.

I view it as defeatist, because even they acknowledge that the two party system is a vote for the lesser of two evils. That unless your lesser evil wins, voting for anyone other than the two evils, is voting for evil.

I vote for Good, not Evil. I'd rather my vote go wasted on Good, than spend it on evil.


Also, why does it bother you so much, that I call you pragmatists defeatist, when you pragmatists are always calling anyone who votes 3rd party Stupid, Idiots, irreverent, traitors, for doing so?

 

Quote

5% isnt a magic number. Its the minimum required vote to be eligible, under FEC guidelines, for Public Funding in the next election. 

 

So calling it a magic number is disingenuous. There is a legitimate reason for it.

*Shrugs*

It wasn't disingenuous as it was more forgetfulness that such a thing existed.

Also: with the money in politics now, Those funds are a drop in the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

*Shrugs*

It wasn't disingenuous as it was more forgetfulness that such a thing existed.

Also: with the money in politics now, Those funds are a drop in the ocean.

A drop from the ocean is a lot to a thirsty man. 3rd parties dont have that much money to start with.

 

It also puts them on all national ballots automatically and makes them eligible for the big debates I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wombat basically took up where I left off.

I'll just reiterate a point and add a clarification.

 

First, if you want people to act differently you change the rules. It really is all about incentive. For example we have very low native birth rates in the United States right now. If you wanted to change that you might give bigger tax breaks for children or longer maternity leave for mothers maybe even put out a little pro baby propaganda if that's your thing. Likewise if you want people to vote 3rd party you must give them incentive to do so. Right now the system basically tells people if you don't choose between 2 major parties then you're going to likely sandbag the person closest aligned to you and give the win to the Big Bad instead of the Lesser Bad. With that in mind the vast majority of people will always choose the Lesser Bad out of fear of giving the win to Big Bad. Change the incentives, don't punish voters for choosing who they really want. That's how you get 3rd parties.

 

Also I think it was said or insinuated that I support or want 3rd parties or that I am frustrated with the system. I'm more neutral/apathetic. If you want to change the way we vote ok if we keep the same ok. Don't really care. I just don't want to live in a direct democracy one man one vote society because those suck. That's all. If you want to keep first past the post whatever if you want to try those wacky systems where they allocate votes to your second and third choices that's fine too I guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lenlo said:

A drop from the ocean is a lot to a thirsty man. 3rd parties dont have that much money to start with.

 

It also puts them on all national ballots automatically and makes them eligible for the big debates I believe.

Are you sure about that?

There's something in the news recently about certain states that are planning on requiring Trump to release his tax returns or he won't be able to register to be on that ballot. 

I was under the impression that you had to register your intent to run for president in every state to be on each states ballot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Are you sure about that?

There's something in the news recently about certain states that are planning on requiring Trump to release his tax returns or he won't be able to register to be on that ballot. 

I was under the impression that you had to register your intent to run for president in every state to be on each states ballot? 

No, your right. Each state has their own rules for it (which is stupid for a presidential election imo, but whatever). I dunno what I was reading that made me think that. Im just an idiot I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lenlo said:

No, your right. Each state has their own rules for it (which is stupid for a presidential election imo, but whatever). I dunno what I was reading that made me think that. Im just an idiot I suppose.

Nah, shit happens. 

It was probably one of those "how things should change" getting merged with "how things currently work".

The human memory sucks...so very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • I am currently rereading WOT for the first time since first reading it. I was just reading the following quote from chapter 12.   “You must handle it,” Moiraine said in answer to something unheard from Lan. “He will remember too much as it is, and no help for it. If I stand out in his thoughts. . . .”   I am trying to figure out what this might be referring to and can't remember what it might be. If somebody could point out what this is meant to reference I would appreciate it. 
    • skin color is irrelevant in wot and I could care less how they cast it.  If they go by the books there will be many races and cultures and main characters like Tuon will be black.  All that is great, no problem.  Just hope they keep the modern political narratives out of this.  I want it to be more like game of thrones where they can do surprising things without offending someone.  If they have to be politically correct then it will ruin the tv show.  Many of the characters have do offensive things and have offensive thoughts so hopefully they can let that shine through.   One of the key traits of the wheel of time was all the different perspectives and all the communication barriers that would crop up between different groups of people.  hopefully they can let all that shine and they will need a very diverse cast to make it happen. 
    • In this thread: some people who are gonna lose their shit when non white actors get cast despite most characters not having an explicitly established skin colour and Randland being a far future setting where skin colour is entirely irrelevant.
×
×
  • Create New...