Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ACG official US election thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Not quite - whereas the election of Trump is a normal consequence of the US electoral system, Brexit (the referendum - we have yet to see the first real trace of Brexit) was a result of the idiocy of Cameron.

    Brexit is a policy decision normally reserved for an elected government,

    electing a president is of course the primary duty of an electorate.

    The comparable aspects lie in the effect of both on political discussions here on the ACG.

    What used to be the "opposition" will "have to" support policy now - that'll be interesting to observe and comment on.

    Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
    (...) It will usher in a new era of isolationism.
    Isolationism ? What will be isolated ?

    Leave a comment:


  • MonsterZero
    replied
    The victory of Trump is the American version of Brexit.

    It will usher in a new era of isolationism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    A minor one - I posted my preliminary conclusion in one of the other threads, forgot which one

    Joking aside - it's much too soon obviously - so far it's much like Brexit, you had a vote and everybody is very excited but nothing really changed.

    We'll know more when the first moment of crisis comes along, it'll be interesting to see if those that criticized US policy under Obama will support it under Trump or vice versa.

    Interesting times ahead.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 14 Nov 16, 05:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well - let me congratulate those who hoped and voted for Trump as president of the US,

    for the first time since I joined the ACG you'll have the president you think you deserve, it'll be interesting to see if and how this changes the dynamics of political discussion here on the ACG
    Have you noticed a change?

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well - let me congratulate those who hoped and voted for Trump as president of the US,

    for the first time since I joined the ACG you'll have the president you think you deserve, it'll be interesting to see if and how this changes the dynamics of political discussion here on the ACG

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    Very well then. In the upcoming French election you can declare in advance of the result what the good polls are, rather than coming along once the result is known and stating which were the good and accurate polls.
    The best measurement is past success. Monmouth, for instance, got this election wrong entirely - far beyond their margin of error, and for reasons I touched on in another thread (methodology is a cruel mistress) - but they still have an 85% success rate over 71 different elections.

    Consider it like a dice roll. Statistically you know that rolling two dice will more likely result in a seven than a nine. But it isn't always a seven, either - the likely result is not guaranteed. So while if you were a betting man the smart money is on the proven, statistical choice, that doesn't mean you'll always win either.

    On a personal note, there's a reason I wouldn't call this election myself. Gun to my head I would have predicted a Clinton victory, but I learned from my mistakes when I dismissed Trump as a nominee early on, when he managed to upset the common assumptions. My head said Clinton had a lead, my gut said Trump was not out yet.

    But going back to the pollsters, the most important thing to keep in mind before the journalists and talking heads decide to throw polls under the bus to mask their own incompetence is that one election does not break the system. What you will see is a lot of altered models to account for this new data and the voting shift that occurred this election, but that's the nature of science: you respond to new data. That's why there exist polls who can accurately reflect reality at the statistically significant level - and why dismissing them based on emotion doesn't make much sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Which is why a reputable poll will get elections right far more often than 50% of the time. Otherwise you're just standing around playing with yourself, wasting everyone's time. Being as accurate as a coin toss isn't good enough.
    Very well then. In the upcoming French election you can declare in advance of the result what the good polls are, rather than coming along once the result is known and stating which were the good and accurate polls.

    Leave a comment:


  • boomer400
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    The framers intentionally designed a constitutional republic rather than a democracy... Because democracy is two lions and a gazelle voting on the dinner menu.
    It should be argued that the the US is actually a hybrid of the two and that to ascribe it as one or the other is actually trying to fix a point in time when 'x' happened. In our case, it's been a moving frame of reference in time when it comes to trying to state whether we're a "democracy" or a "republic". It's an argument that's been going on since before the Constitution was signed. In fact, it's funny to see when republican citizens ascribe to see some ballot victory or election vote as 'the people have spoken' and vice versa when democrats do the same. Rather, it goes both ways and the terms as commonly used aren't really some fixed point in concrete. So it's, well, we can't say it's a pointless argument but it to use it some kind of critical distinction doesn't really mean anything since everyone tends to violate the distinctions anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    The EC isn't just to keep small states relevant it also recognizes that they are sovereign entities. I don't disagree with your points, but removing the EC is contrary to the concept of each state as a separate, sovereign entity.

    My vote for president hasn't counted in 20+ years, I don't like it but accept that maintaining the concept of state sovereignty is more important than whether my vote counts outside of my state.
    The framers intentionally designed a constitutional republic rather than a democracy... Because democracy is two lions and a gazelle voting on the dinner menu.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    But we're also talking about individual votes here. Why should I give two craps about how inferior people from Montana feel that I should be content to live as a second-class citizen, granted a lesser vote? And as a citizen of Texas, why should I allow those smaller states to bully bigger ones by deciding the elections instead?

    We talk about swing states and we see the focus of spending within them for exactly the same reason we created the EC in hopes of avoiding: certain states wield undue influence and power over the elections in excess of their populations.

    The compromise for congress in providing for a House and a Senate created a bicameral legislature to appease both the big and the small by empowering both. The EC takes power away from the big and gives it to the small, only to have us still end up right back in the same position as before: certain states decide the elections with outsized influence.



    Socialism has as a central tenant the belief / acceptance that wealth and the control over wealth is power, thus wealth redistribution is a means of equalizing a power imbalance. In presidential elections, the power stems from the electoral college which is fed by votes, thus the system redistributes that power from "wealthy" to "poor".

    As it stands, in a realist view you certainly do have more of a voice because you're more imposing and more wealthy. Who do people and politicians listen to more: the poor and the mute, or the wealthy and verbose? The same goes for electoral representation: the vote of an Alaskan has more weight than that of a Texan due to the influence of the EC, meaning they have more of a voice based solely on where they live.

    70,000 extra voters for Clinton living in Texas was worthless, while 70,000 extra voters in Pennsylvania would have been a welcome blessing... even though it involes the same number of American citizens. They are not worth the same as their fellow citizens in national elections.

    Now, under a simple majority election - the free market option, if you will - all citizens would have the same say since each vote would be equal: 70,000 Texans would have just as big an impact as 70,000 Pennsylvanians. It wouldn't matter from where you got them, only that they voted for you.

    Suddenly the focus shifts to winning over the most Americans to your cause, not just appealing to artificially inflated states who only seem relevant because they're being electorally subsidized at the expense of their more competent and worthwhile neighbors. It's an electoral welfare program, nothing more.

    Under the electoral college, with its forced attempts at equality and power redistribution, your physical location determines the relative worthlessness of your vote. Under a free market, direct democracy system, your location is meaningless: a Texan and a Montanan share the same influence on who will become president.

    A Montanan might feel like they're less important than a Texan since they have a smaller population, but this loops back around to the socialism metaphor again. A socialist believes in using government power to take away from those that have more to empower those that have les. The electoral college does this by making Texan voters less important and Montanans more important. Electoral redistribution. Take from the "rich" and give to the "poor".

    Under that free market, popular vote model, citizens of all states are treated equally, and however populated their state is is left up to them, to succeed or fail based on their own initiative and hard work.
    The EC isn't just to keep small states relevant it also recognizes that they are sovereign entities. I don't disagree with your points, but removing the EC is contrary to the concept of each state as a separate, sovereign entity.

    My vote for president hasn't counted in 20+ years, I don't like it but accept that maintaining the concept of state sovereignty is more important than whether my vote counts outside of my state.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    You fail to understand that the constitution stipulates that the president is not elected by the American people, but by the inhabitants of the states . This is also proved by the fact that, if the EV give no majority, the decision reverts to the states where every state (California and Alaska ) has ONE vote .

    What you propose is to abolish federalism and to replace it by a centralised state,where there is no longer place for the states .

    Such a centralised multicultural state would not last long . This is proved by recent history .

    In the current system, the president is indirectly elected by the population of the states, in this system, small states are favoured.But there is no viable substitution,unless you want to change society . By force of course .

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    In some ways you're correct. But you're incorrect as to your reasoning. Wyoming or Alaska is never going to have the population of New York or California, no matter how much they incentivize or encourage people to move there. Originally the plan was set up to prevent New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from 'ruling' the United States by virtue of a large population. Without some way of ensuring that each state has at least some vote, you turn into mob rule of the cities, and that only mattering. IOW, if we didn't have the electoral vote (AND the Senate), New York would literally rule New England.....the little New England states would be beholden to New York to get anything beneficial to themselves and would create a bloc out of proportion to the actual size of New York, because New York had enough population to nullify anything but a massive coalition of states against her desires.
    But we're also talking about individual votes here. Why should I give two craps about how inferior people from Montana feel that I should be content to live as a second-class citizen, granted a lesser vote? And as a citizen of Texas, why should I allow those smaller states to bully bigger ones by deciding the elections instead?

    We talk about swing states and we see the focus of spending within them for exactly the same reason we created the EC in hopes of avoiding: certain states wield undue influence and power over the elections in excess of their populations.

    The compromise for congress in providing for a House and a Senate created a bicameral legislature to appease both the big and the small by empowering both. The EC takes power away from the big and gives it to the small, only to have us still end up right back in the same position as before: certain states decide the elections with outsized influence.

    Socialism is a push for equality of economic outcome regardless of effort. Republican government and the Electoral College is more of a push for equality of 'voice' regardless of size. You don't presume that I should have more of a voice than someone else because I'm physically more imposing and I have more money. Equally, you don't have the ability to overrule a plurality of states just because your state has a large population and some rich people.
    Socialism has as a central tenant the belief / acceptance that wealth and the control over wealth is power, thus wealth redistribution is a means of equalizing a power imbalance. In presidential elections, the power stems from the electoral college which is fed by votes, thus the system redistributes that power from "wealthy" to "poor".

    As it stands, in a realist view you certainly do have more of a voice because you're more imposing and more wealthy. Who do people and politicians listen to more: the poor and the mute, or the wealthy and verbose? The same goes for electoral representation: the vote of an Alaskan has more weight than that of a Texan due to the influence of the EC, meaning they have more of a voice based solely on where they live.

    70,000 extra voters for Clinton living in Texas was worthless, while 70,000 extra voters in Pennsylvania would have been a welcome blessing... even though it involes the same number of American citizens. They are not worth the same as their fellow citizens in national elections.

    Now, under a simple majority election - the free market option, if you will - all citizens would have the same say since each vote would be equal: 70,000 Texans would have just as big an impact as 70,000 Pennsylvanians. It wouldn't matter from where you got them, only that they voted for you.

    Suddenly the focus shifts to winning over the most Americans to your cause, not just appealing to artificially inflated states who only seem relevant because they're being electorally subsidized at the expense of their more competent and worthwhile neighbors. It's an electoral welfare program, nothing more.

    Under the electoral college, with its forced attempts at equality and power redistribution, your physical location determines the relative worthlessness of your vote. Under a free market, direct democracy system, your location is meaningless: a Texan and a Montanan share the same influence on who will become president.

    A Montanan might feel like they're less important than a Texan since they have a smaller population, but this loops back around to the socialism metaphor again. A socialist believes in using government power to take away from those that have more to empower those that have les. The electoral college does this by making Texan voters less important and Montanans more important. Electoral redistribution. Take from the "rich" and give to the "poor".

    Under that free market, popular vote model, citizens of all states are treated equally, and however populated their state is is left up to them, to succeed or fail based on their own initiative and hard work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    That's not good enough given the time and money invested. It is a binary choice that a coin toss will get right half the time. The pollsters needs to up their game. In what other industry would the consumer accept such poor product? Tell us who will win or be clear that it is too complicated to say and you don't know the answer. The latter is unthinkable so of course the pollster must make a choice of winner they themselves are dubious about.
    Which is why a reputable poll will get elections right far more often than 50% of the time. Otherwise you're just standing around playing with yourself, wasting everyone's time. Being as accurate as a coin toss isn't good enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    No single poster her has ever actually explained that line of reasoning to me. It's repeated like a religious mantra, but nobody ever seems willing to explain how having the mob choose representatives to do their bidding is any different than the mob just choosing for themselves, when the outcome (the mob getting their way) is still the same.

    Basically it's an electoral reading of the Connecticut Compromise. IOW, a Virginia Plan approach would be popular vote only. A Delaware plan approach would be each state getting equal representation. The Compromise position is that each state gets a limited amount of equal representation, IOW 3 votes,.....and then it gets additional representation based on population. This is to prevent the states with large populations from 'ruling' their smaller neighbors by the fiat of huge population.


    Indeed. It is electoral socialism: taking political power away from the haves to endowed those states too lazy or incompetent to increase their own populations enough to compete legitimately. That is why a Texan's vote is worth less than an Alaskan's vote: it's a redistribution of political power in the name of "fairness" for a minority.
    In some ways you're correct. But you're incorrect as to your reasoning. Wyoming or Alaska is never going to have the population of New York or California, no matter how much they incentivize or encourage people to move there. Originally the plan was set up to prevent New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from 'ruling' the United States by virtue of a large population. Without some way of ensuring that each state has at least some vote, you turn into mob rule of the cities, and that only mattering. IOW, if we didn't have the electoral vote (AND the Senate), New York would literally rule New England.....the little New England states would be beholden to New York to get anything beneficial to themselves and would create a bloc out of proportion to the actual size of New York, because New York had enough population to nullify anything but a massive coalition of states against her desires.

    Socialism is a push for equality of economic outcome regardless of effort. Republican government and the Electoral College is more of a push for equality of 'voice' regardless of size. You don't presume that I should have more of a voice than someone else because I'm physically more imposing and I have more money. Equally, you don't have the ability to overrule a plurality of states just because your state has a large population and some rich people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    What the opinion polls do not know is who it is that actually turns out. A lot of Dems stayed home, because they did not like her or because she was not black, but the GOP was very motivated. Also a lot of normal Blue Collar Democrats (aka Reagan Democrats) turned and voted GOP this go around.

    Tuebor
    That's not good enough given the time and money invested. It is a binary choice that a coin toss will get right half the time. The pollsters needs to up their game. In what other industry would the consumer accept such poor product? Tell us who will win or be clear that it is too complicated to say and you don't know the answer. The latter is unthinkable so of course the pollster must make a choice of winner they themselves are dubious about.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X