Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 646 of 1485 (651017)
02-03-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2012 6:49 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
I obviously understand why it's done, I just find that a very unfortunate reality.
I would be very interested in conducting an experiment where there is essentially a media blackout for one control group, and the other group it's business as usual and search for noticeable anomalies or disparities between the two.
I'd be much more interested in changing the system to something that doesn;t force me to suppress my moral outrage at the political activities of a monster to prevent a worse monster from taking office. Seriously, I feel like Japan, voting for Godzilla to destroy half of Tokyo so that (insert monster here) doesn't destroy it all.
What I'd like would be, at a minimum, to start voting Senators and Representatives from third parties into power. It's smaller scale, more local, far less money involved, especially for Representatives, and so the person we want can actually have a chance to win. If a single third party can build up structure and supporters through more local victories, they can scale up to the national level over time, and we can finally have a choice other than the Republicrats or the Demoblicans for the Presidency.
What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 7:06 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 648 by Taz, posted 02-06-2012 9:59 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 651 by Perdition, posted 02-06-2012 2:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 647 of 1485 (651020)
02-03-2012 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Rahvin
02-03-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
Seriously, I feel like Japan, voting for Godzilla to destroy half of Tokyo so that (insert monster here) doesn't destroy it all.
Well said, sir

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2012 6:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 648 of 1485 (651295)
02-06-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by Rahvin
02-03-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
Rahvin writes:
What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available.
I have to wonder how realistic this expectation is. Right now, we have a 2 party system and nothing is getting done... at all. Imagine a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. party system and for anything to get done there'd need to be 60% vote supporting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2012 6:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 649 of 1485 (651296)
02-06-2012 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 645 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2012 6:49 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
Hyro writes:
It's all speculative assuming no polls were reported, which is fundamentally what I'm referring to.
It's not speculative. What, you think all those green party voters would have gone out and voted republican had there been no green party candidate?
There is no doubt that those green party sons of bitches gave us Bush for 8 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by Perdition, posted 02-06-2012 2:06 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 650 of 1485 (651331)
02-06-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2012 6:36 PM


Re: The fallacy of polling
I should have clarified. What I mean is that these polls tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies. It leads the horse to water. Those who liked Paul or Santorum may all of a sudden shift their views in favor of Romney or Gingrich, simply because they're "winning in the polls." So the burgeoning question would be how people would vote if there was a total media blackout.
I agree that this is an issue. It's why someone can "build momentum" through the primaries. However, there are still two issues at work here.
1) If it shows someone winning because most people like them, then, assuming your goal is to get the best possible candidate in, it makes sense to switch to the candidate that has a chance of winning and is closest to your views. Otherwise, while you're being true to your first choice, your last choice might win a majority.
2) It depends on what your motivation for voting is. People should vote for the person they think will do the best job. However, a lot of people are actually voting against a person they dislike, regrdless of how the person they're voting for will govern. For example, in America, a lot of people (mostly Republicans, but by no means all of them are) are using this election as a referendum on Obama. So, if Obama is doing a bad job, vote against him. This doesn't do anything to ensure that the other person won't do a worse job.
I, for one, would love to see a controlled study on that very thing.
So would I. It might give me more faith in the Republicans in this country. There can't actually be that many people who like Gingrich, can there?
Yeah, but if both candidates have similar tendencies, then it really doesn't matter. I would not like that on my conscience. Look at the debacle with Obama. He simply expanded Bush's policies when he was voted to stop them.
That's why I ended with the line about, if they're both bat-shit crazy, then vote for who you want.
As for Obama, the way he acts after election has no bearing on how he campaigned, as mcuh as we might wish it would. Still, for every thing he's done that I disagree with, there has been a lot of stuff he's done that I agree with. I sincerely believe that he is better than McCain would have been, and I sincerely believe he will be better than Romney would be. If I could pick the person to be President out of all possible people (with the caveat that I can't just pick myself), he's not even in my top 10 list. Number one for me would be Feingold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 651 of 1485 (651333)
02-06-2012 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Rahvin
02-03-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
I'd be much more interested in changing the system to something that doesn;t force me to suppress my moral outrage at the political activities of a monster to prevent a worse monster from taking office.
A good start would be the ability to rank candidates, rather than simply picking one. That way, you could vote for your number one guy in first place (say a full vote), but put Obama at number 2 (say a .5 vote), and Romney at 3 (a zero vote).
With this system, third party candidates would have a better chance at getting "one" votes because people wouldn't feel like they were throwing their vote away (or worse, as you pointed out above), and at the worst, they would get a "half" vote because presumably people would rather have them then the other "major" party's candidate.
I'd love to see what kind of change a vote like this would make.
What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available.
The biggest obstacle is that getting this change would require the people for whom the current system obviously works (they got elected) to change the system to one that could very well mean they would lose.
It's the old fox guarding the henhouse problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2012 6:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 652 of 1485 (651334)
02-06-2012 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by Taz
02-06-2012 10:02 AM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
It's not speculative. What, you think all those green party voters would have gone out and voted republican had there been no green party candidate?
It's possible they would not have voted at all. Which would have been a wash.
While part of me feels anger at them for voting for someone who had no chance of winning, it's essentially the same as if they hadn't bothered to vote at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by Taz, posted 02-06-2012 10:02 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 654 by Rahvin, posted 02-06-2012 2:45 PM Perdition has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 653 of 1485 (651337)
02-06-2012 2:17 PM


Battle-Born!
So, Romney won the Nevada caucus, for the first time getting over 50%. (To be precise, 50.1%.)
Apparently no-one cares, even me and I live in Nevada. Let apathy ring throughout the land!
It has led to people calling for the caucus system in Nevada to be replaced by a primary. 'Cos only 34,000 people bothered to turn up out of a population of ~2.7 million. Apparently even Nevadans don't care very much about how they vote.
We're for democracy, we're just not very interested in it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 655 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 654 of 1485 (651341)
02-06-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Perdition
02-06-2012 2:06 PM


Re: The Prisoner's Dilemma
While part of me feels anger at them for voting for someone who had no chance of winning, it's essentially the same as if they hadn't bothered to vote at all.
The effect is the same. But these were people who actually overcame the major hurdle - they defeated voter apathy and voted. If they had been more aware of their fellow voters through polling, they may have taken a very slightly differnte course of action. Were I in their place, preferring Green but also preferring Gore to Bush and knowing that Florida was a swing state, I would have voted for damage control rather than idealism and cast my vote for Gore.
You know how polls talk about "likely voters?" They're the ones who count. And you don't get much more "likely" than "actually voted," even if they essencially threw those votes away. I consider them to be slighly more at fault than those who simply didn't vote at all - we know with near certainty that the Green voters would have preferred Gore to Bush.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Perdition, posted 02-06-2012 2:06 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by Perdition, posted 02-06-2012 4:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 655 of 1485 (651342)
02-06-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Dr Adequate
02-06-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
Did you vote?
How is it decided who can and cannot vote in Republican nominations elections?
Could a bunch of Democrats have signed up to vote in this caucas in order to make a different Republican candidate win and thus throw the cat amongst the pigeons?
If a mass of secret Democrats signed up could they have all voted for Hermain Caine and had him win this vote.
How does it work?
Yours - A confused Brit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2012 2:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Taq, posted 02-06-2012 3:12 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 752 by Boof, posted 03-05-2012 12:07 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 656 of 1485 (651344)
02-06-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Straggler
02-06-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
How is it decided who can and cannot vote in Republican nominations elections?
It varies from state to state. In states with "closed" primaries, you have to register as a member of the party and can only vote in that primary. In "open" primaries, anyone can vote in any primary they please. There are also states with a mixture of these models.
If a mass of secret Democrats signed up could they have all voted for Hermain Caine and had him win this vote.
They could. All it requires is to fill out a form saying you are a Republican. However, you may not be able to vote in the Democratic primary which does include local nominations for state legislatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:31 PM Taq has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 657 of 1485 (651346)
02-06-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Taq
02-06-2012 3:12 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
Mod PMed me and sent me to Message 531 which is frankly an invaluable guide to this shit.
But I still have a question - Why is there not a Democratic equivalent going on? Is Obama, as the President, automatically the Demo candidate?
Or is there a whole irrelevant Democratic "race" going on that I am blissfully unaware of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Taq, posted 02-06-2012 3:12 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by subbie, posted 02-06-2012 3:46 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 660 by Taq, posted 02-06-2012 3:55 PM Straggler has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 658 of 1485 (651349)
02-06-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by Straggler
02-06-2012 3:31 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
It's highly unusual for a sitting President to get a serious challenge in the primary from another candidate of the same party, but it does happen. This year, there is nobody that I am aware that is running any kind of challenge to Obama as the Dimwitcrat nominee. Thus, while technically there are Dimwitcrat primary elections running concurrently with the Repugnantcans, they are one horse races and entirely unimportant.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:31 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by Taq, posted 02-06-2012 3:53 PM subbie has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 659 of 1485 (651352)
02-06-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by subbie
02-06-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
Thus, while technically there are Dimwitcrat primary elections running concurrently with the Repugnantcans, they are one horse races and entirely unimportant.
They are not unimportant for local elections. Many states also have their state legislators running for nominations alongside the presidential nominations. I happen to live in a state dominated by Republicans. Often, the only "true" election is the Republican primary. Candidates often win in the general because they have an (R) next to their name. It could also be argued that state and local governments have just as large of an impact on your life as the federal government.
Unimportant as it relates to the Presidential nomination? Yes, I will agree with that. But unimportant in general just because Obama is not being challenged? Not so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by subbie, posted 02-06-2012 3:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by subbie, posted 02-06-2012 3:59 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 660 of 1485 (651354)
02-06-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by Straggler
02-06-2012 3:31 PM


Re: Battle-Born!
But I still have a question - Why is there not a Democratic equivalent going on?
There is a Democratic equivalent, but Obama is not being challenged. It is a one horse race so it isn't that interesting from a news perspective. If there was a legitimate challenge, and that challenger was getting a substantial portion of the vote, then you would definitely hear more about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2012 3:31 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024