Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 2:03 PM
341 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,025 Year: 28,631/21,208 Month: 697/1,847 Week: 72/475 Day: 19/53 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9495
96
9798
...
103Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1426 of 1537 (822368)
10-23-2017 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1424 by 1.61803
10-23-2017 4:25 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
1.6 writes:

at least do thumbnails so we can skim past.

I am so sorry to irritate you with my harping (I tire of it too).

It sounds like you would prefer not to think or know about the consequences of Hillary's criminal actions.

Join the club.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1424 by 1.61803, posted 10-23-2017 4:25 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1427 of 1537 (822369)
10-23-2017 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1425 by Taq
10-23-2017 4:42 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Taq writes:

I am often morbidly entertained by watching people display their psychological problems in public, sort of like being transfixed while watching a dumpster fire.

I think the term for someone who enjoys watching people in crisis and dumpster fires is called a 'sociopath.'

Thanks for sharing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1425 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 4:42 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1429 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 5:43 PM dronestar has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1428 of 1537 (822370)
10-23-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1416 by Modulous
10-23-2017 1:15 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

You have confused the popular vote for the election. But that isn't the election. The popular vote number has no bearing on the Presidency. She 'won' the popular vote - but there's no tangible prize for that contest. She lost election which is held by the electoral college.

I don't think you and Rrhain need to argue over nomenclature. You both know the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college. Rrhain's actual point is the same one I have made to you, that putting all your interpretational emphasis on an electoral college result that would have been opposite with just a 0.05% change in where popular votes were cast is strongly misplaced.

I didn't expect myself to be explaining what the phrase 'too many' means to an adult of your educational standards. "Too many" does not mean "many".

Again, you're arguing terminology when meaning is clear. You're calling it "too many" as if that tells us something meaningful about Clinton's quality as a candidate. The problem is made clear by your example:

If I have 11 apples and a box that will only fit 10 apples. I have too many apples to fit in the box. 1 too many, in fact. 1 is not a large number of apples.

How would anyone know how big the problem is if "too many" could be 1 too many apples or a thousand too many. As it turns out it's just one apple and the problem is non-existent, since the delivery guy just sticks one apple in his pocket. In similar fashion, a change in the way 0.05% of the popular vote was cast is miniscule.

The point being that there were a large number (relative to other elections) of these people being very vocal all the way through the election cycle, and the Democrats chose to go with her anyway.

There were also a large number of people vocal for Clinton. The majority, as it turns out.

Had someone with a comparable message, experience and skill stood, but without that baggage, maybe the Democrats would have won.

If pigs could fly...

Whatever the case, Clinton was disliked by more than enough numbers to result in her loss.

It wasn't that Clinton was disliked by too many. Trump was also disliked by many, and that the electoral college votes fell his way does not send a message to the Republicans that their selection process is just fine. Why would you think a loss sends the opposite message to the Democrats, who have a process nearly identical to the Republicans?

The difference was a mere 0.05% of the popular vote in exactly the right places. Again, your conclusion that the proper message for the Democrats to take from the election was that Clinton was an inadequate candidate and that they need to change their system for selecting candidates is not supported by a single thing you've said. And you haven't said anything about far more meaningful factors, such as Comey reopening the email investigation (for no good reason, it turns out) in the days just before the election.

Not really - the claim is that she did not resonate with enough people. Or in other terms she anti-resonated with too many people. This is a different claim than she did not resonate with 'people'.
...
Well no, the point of this part of the discussion is that, whatever the reasons, there were too many people that disliked her enough to not vote for her for her to get elected as President.

Determinedly repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less false.

We can certainly discuss some of the reasons, if you'd like, but it is orthogonal to the point that sparked this sub discussion.

Rrhain and I probably part ways at this point (about how fairly Clinton was perceived by the electorate and treated by the mainstream news media), but she *was* the candidate targeted by the Russians (look up the guy who shot up the pizza parlor for an example of fake news about Clinton that was apparently believed by many more people than anyone could ever have believed were that stupid). She *was* the candidate who had an incredibly big deal made about a security mistake regarding an email server that apparently resulted in no security breaches. She *was* the candidate blitzed by Comey just before the election.

So it's really hard, especially given the dearth of evidence you offer, to give any credence to your premise that there were better candidates than Clinton to be had out there had the Democrats had a better selection process.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1416 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2017 1:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1431 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2017 7:24 PM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1429 of 1537 (822373)
10-23-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1427 by dronestar
10-23-2017 5:24 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
dronestar writes:

I think the term for someone who enjoys watching people in crisis and dumpster fires is called a 'sociopath.'

No need to be irritated. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to read my posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1427 by dronestar, posted 10-23-2017 5:24 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1442 by dronestar, posted 10-24-2017 3:32 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1430 of 1537 (822374)
10-23-2017 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by dronestar
10-23-2017 4:07 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Hi DroneStar,

I don't really know you, and I don't recall ever having a discussion with you, and I don't recall ever interacting with you in an administrative capacity, so I took a look at some of your discussion in other threads. You seem like a reasonable guy. If you'd like to engage in constructive discussion of the topic of this thread (The Trump Presidency) then I think that'd be great, but if you continue to spam the thread in the way that you have then I will follow the normal administrative procedures for such situations.

You seem very interested in Clinton as a war criminal, so the best way to pursue discussing it would be to open a new thread. Anyone can open a thread in the Coffee House forum. You don't have to propose it first. But let me add that spamming a thread, even your own thread, with the kinds of photos you've been posting thus far for the reasons you have will bring administrative action. I want EvC Forum to remain a decent place. Use your words. I'll be downsizing the photos from your posts in this thread soon.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix last sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by dronestar, posted 10-23-2017 4:07 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1441 by dronestar, posted 10-24-2017 3:29 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1431 of 1537 (822375)
10-23-2017 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1428 by Percy
10-23-2017 5:34 PM


Re: the attribution
Rrhain's actual point is the same one I have made to you, that putting all your interpretational emphasis on an electoral college result that would have been opposite with just a 0.05% change in where popular votes were cast is strongly misplaced.

I have no idea what this means. The popular vote remains a number irrelevant to the election of President. Where you are right however, is that the margin to victory was small and if only it weren't for those few fractions of a percent of people that didn't like her enough to vote for her didn't feel that way about the candidate - the Democrats may have managed three in a row.

You're calling it "too many" as if that tells us something meaningful about Clinton's quality as a candidate.

It simply tells us that there were too many that disliked her. If you think that speaks to her quality, then so be it.

How would anyone know how big the problem is if "too many" could be 1 too many apples or a thousand too many. As it turns out it's just one apple and the problem is non-existent, since the delivery guy just sticks one apple in his pocket. In similar fashion, a change in the way 0.05% of the popular vote was cast is miniscule.

But enough to be too many.

There were also a large number of people vocal for Clinton. The majority, as it turns out.

Which was not sufficient. Had the electorate been shuffled around, she may well have won (she had millions to spare in California, for example) - but the margin in the popular vote would still have been very small. In the bottom 15 of all elections. You need a bigger margin which requires not only the support of the majority, but a clearer majority than she got to escape the bumpiness the college brings.

So, had she had the same support as she had, but without as many people actively disliking her...it would have given a larger margin and made victory all the more likely. Obama succeeded acquiring that kind of margin - over 7% the first time, a little under 4% the next (which is cutting it fine). Bill Clinton had bigger margins - 8.5% and 5.5% which in the modern era is probably enough to basically guarantee the Presidency.

Determinedly repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less false.

Are you seriously suggesting that if everybody liked her...everybody, she would not have a landslide? It was a close election from a popular election point of view because
a) Trump won many of the votes from people who liked Trump
b) Trump won many votes from people that would prefer Trump over her (ie., don't like Trump - but hate her)
c) People who liked neither candidate and voted elsewhere or not at all - including those that might have voted for a different Democratic candidate

Surely, that's just obvious, isn't it? The very opposite of a fallacy.

So it's really hard, especially given the dearth of evidence you offer, to give any credence to your premise that there were better candidates than Clinton to be had out there had the Democrats had a better selection process.

And as I have said multiple times, if there were no candidates able to secure more votes, the Democrats were doomed to either a marginal win or a marginal loss depending on how the cookie crumbled - unlike some other elections. And this is not a good sign for the Democrats


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1428 by Percy, posted 10-23-2017 5:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1434 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 10:25 AM Modulous has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1432 of 1537 (822378)
10-23-2017 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1419 by Modulous
10-23-2017 2:05 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

It's not my views which matter. I was referring to the views of the voters.

The views we're talking about are yours, namely that Clinton's loss indicates the Democrats have a flawed selection process ("Yes, it's the radar I am criticising!"), pretty much the same process as the Republicans, who won.

And yes, maybe Clinton was the best one possible. My point is that the method of selection currently under use doesn't help verify this as well as it could.

Have these alternative selection procedures you keep talking about demonstrated any superiority in selecting a candidate for the main election. I mean, is there evidence from countries that have implemented such procedures.

Also, you keep talking about Clinton as if she were the only one with negatives. Sanders had negatives, too. Say the Democrats used a procedure that resulted in the nomination of Sanders. Sanders would have lost in the electoral college bigger than Clinton, and he would not have won a majority of the popular vote. That isn't a big endorsement for your "alternative procedure" that you so obviously hope would have made Sanders the Democratic nominee.

Oh, but wait, let's not forget all those hypothetical candidates your selection procedures would have identified who would have led the Democrats to victory. Well, if hypotheticals with no supporting evidence were worth a darn you'd be doing swimmingly, but they're not.

Whether or not it impacted the 2016 election doesn't mean it remains a real risk that a better candidate (meaning one that will get more votes in the election, not one that I prefer) may lose in the Primaries.

This is just more supposin'. No comment.

I can't believe you keep raising this point. Clinton won more votes than Trump.

I can't believe I keep having to say she got less votes than Trump in the election that matters.

You've lost the plot. You were repeating your point about the Democrats needing to find "candidates more optimally". I expect you'll keep ignoring that Clinton only lost the electoral college because of where 0.05% of the popular vote was cast, and that you'll keep arguing that the electoral college result that was determined by such a minuscule difference means Clinton wasn't the best candidate and that the Democrats need better selection procedures, but you haven't been able to argue your position in a way that makes sense to anyone.

She got the 2nd most vote total in US history.

Absolute numbers are meaningless when the number of people that vote goes up all the time.

But the number of people who vote does not go up all the time. More people voted in 2008 than voted in 2012 and 2016. Sure, the long term trend is increasing votes cast due to increasing population, but the population isn't increasing all that fast, certainly not enough to diminish the significance of Clinton's vote total. That Clinton received the 2nd most vote total in US history is not a fact that can simply be discarded because it's inconvenient to your thesis.

She would only be non-optimal if another candidate would have got more votes even that her. It's the method of selection which is non-optimal. Hence my saying...'If they can't find candidates more optimally'.

You shouldn't keep offering arguments that have been shown fatally flawed. You only believe "the method of selection is non-optimal" in ways that meaningfully affect elections because Clinton lost based upon flawed reasoning.

If I were a Democratic candidate I would put you in one of the tiny categories of voter who is nearly impossible to satisfy.

I'm hoping the DNC is better at this than you. I'd vote for a candidate who moved a decent amount leftwards, even if it was still not very close to me.

Well, the DNC is already better at this than you. This supposed candidate of whom you speak couldn't possibly be a Democrat, reinforcing what I said that from the point of the view of the Democrats you fit into one of the tiny categories of voter who is nearly impossible to satisfy. That doesn't mean nobody could satisfy you, that's not what I mean. But it does mean that any candidate satisfactory to you has no chance of winning in the general election, unless you're talking 50-100 years out again, which I hope you're not.

But I don't think protest votes are a problem. How many times now have I called 2016 a special situation because of the possibility of Trump's election, with people like you casting votes (or no vote) counter to their own best interests?

Which is fine - if this is true then no change is therefore required. As I've said.

You said that before? Sorry, must have missed it.

Well, sure, but it still leaves me wondering why you keep shifting to the 50-100 year timeframe when I've repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in looking out that far.

Then stop saying I'm voting against my best interests, because that timescale will be my response again.

I can't stop saying what is true, and it makes no sense to shift the focus to your 50-100 year timeframe just because it's pointed out that your hypothetical protest vote in 2016 was contrary to your own best interests.

You can think of it that way, but I think of it as voting against your own best interests.

I hope this explains why I don't see it as voting against my own best interests.

You didn't explain anything. All you did was make the nonsensical comment that telling you your hypothetical 2016 vote was contrary to your own best interests would cause you to start talking yet again about 50-100 years out. You *do* have interests today, one of them is wanting to come to the US, which a Clinton win would have allowed, not that you didn't come up with yet more spurious objections that Clinton isn't a pure enough LGBT supporter for you. Now I know you say you put more emphasis on your long term interests than on your short term interests, but you personally have almost no long term interests in the 50-100 year timeframe, because during most of that timeframe you'll be dead. I have more to say about this later.

What you see as a long term trend toward the left may actually just be a side effect of an increasing wealth trend, and if that trend stops then so does the trend toward the left.

Indeed - and maybe my views of where we should be going, and my voting strategy, will change accordingly.

Maybe more serious consideration of this possibility is warranted.

Hardly an old post. I didn't think something you'd said 3 days ago would be something you forgot, especially when I quote it to you. Apologies for any confusion it brought.

It wasn't something I forgot. I was trying to track back why you were reintroducing it into the conversation.

c) I view my best interests as a long term project not a short term one.

Most people view a timeframe of 50-100 years out not as one where their own best interests lie, but those of their progeny. And I can tell you from experience, what progeny regard as their own best interests could bear very little resemblance to your own.

c) is obvious.

c) is dumb. Remember all the science predictions of the 1950's of rocket cars and personal flying packs? Well, looking 50-100 years out politically has just as much accuracy.

Uh, no. You achieve changing their vote by convincing them that Trump had a real chance of getting elected.

Which I would put under 'changing people'.

No, that wouldn't be an accurate way of describing persuasion through the introduction of factual information.

You notion is to change the way the people make voting decisions.

More accurately, the idea is to persuade people of the risks inherent in a protest vote in the 2016 election.

In this case, through the use of fear.

I'm against the use of scare tactics, but anyway, describing how Trump had a legitimate chance of election is not a scare tactic.

That's the method the Democrats went with,...

I think "scare tactics" is the wrong term. I'm against them, but I think all the Democrats were doing was accurately characterizing Trump. That's not a scare tactic, that's just the truth. And looking back on what the Democrats said about Trump during the election anyone can see that it was the truth. In fact, if anything it considerably understated the truth. But anyway, I don't know why you're singling out the Democrats. The Republicans used the same strategy. And that's pretty much the tack taken by the five currently living former presidents, including the Republicans, when they gathered recently in support of hurricane victims.

...but for a variety of reasons either people didn't believe them or they decided that this possibility was not sufficient reason.

I don't think it was that people weren't convinced Trump would make a bad president. They just didn't take his chances seriously enough.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1419 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2017 2:05 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1440 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2017 2:57 PM Percy has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1433 of 1537 (822398)
10-24-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1401 by Percy
10-20-2017 6:53 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Percy writes:

You mean when it comes to access to healthcare and jobs and food and a clean environment and things like that? Don't we all assume these things are in everyone's best interests?

Of course not.

You or I don't get to assume what any adult's "best interests" are.

Haven't you ever heard of those people who would rather die in their home, happy... instead of leaving for better healthcare, jobs or food?
Who are you to say that a long, unhappy life is in "their best interests" over a short, happy life?
You don't get to make such decisions for other people.
(This isn't to say that's what happened in this election... just to show that some people can judge their own best interests differently than what you are declaring they "should be.")

Again, you can try to persuade them why you think your ideas are better.
You can talk about "anything can happen in the future, so I think it's best if you do what you can to live longer..."

But you don't get to say that such things are obviously in their best interests.
That's up for them to decide.

If you're a starving family of Democrats, Trump will make things worse for you.

Unless you value your 3rd party vote over starving.
Perhaps you value the future of your children over your own, personal current situation and hope to improve things for them.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?

If you're a poor family that needs help affording health insurance, Trump will make things worse for you.

Unless you value your 3rd party vote over being poor.
Perhaps you value the future of the country over your own, personal current situation.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?

If you're the grieving wife of a dead soldier, Trump will make things worse for you.

Unless you value your 3rd party vote over Trump being in office.
Perhaps you value the memory of your husband over voting for Trump or the Democrats.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?

And of course, Trump will also be making things worse for those who voted for him.

Unless he doesn't make them worse, of course, according to their own decisions about their own "best interests." Not Percy's decision about what their "best interests" should be.
Perhaps someone values following Trump over anything else, even their own life.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?

Some poor person in the midwest who can only afford health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act has the perfect right to vote for Trump, which would be against their own best interests because Trump is trying to take that health insurance away from them.

This only makes sense if "having affordable health insurance" is one of the highest priorities for someone.
Some people make higher priorities. Sometimes to the detriment of their health. They accept such things, and wouldn't have it any other way.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?
Can you think of something you might want above your own health? (I'm going to assume you can, because most people certainly can.)
Why can't someone else make a similar decision for themselves? Only Percy can decide when their health is the most important and when it isn't?

I think you may be confusing my declaration that some people cast votes that were contrary to their best interests with telling people how they must vote. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

No, I'm not confusing what you're doing at all.

I'm asking you why you think you get to decide what someone else's best interests are.

Just because you think healthcare, jobs, food, safety and a clean environment need to be everyone else's top priorities?
Can't they be high priorities but they hold one or two other things slightly higher?
Can't they decide if they want to risk something very large in order to stand for something else they find very important?
Can't they do something you think is silly?
Can't they decide that these things are the highest priorities... but losing some in the short-term is worth correcting the path to have such values stronger in the long-term?

If they think any one of those, or anything else along such lines... why can't it be in their best interests to vote 3rd party just because it's not what you've decided are your own best interests?

I would agree with you that some people voted against the interests of their health care, or possibly some other specifics...
But I cannot agree with you that all 3rd party voters voted against their own best interests just because you disagree what those "best interests" should be.
I'm sure some did.. but all? That's declaring that no one who can think could possibly think differently from Percy. And that's just arrogant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1401 by Percy, posted 10-20-2017 6:53 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1435 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 10:41 AM Stile has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1434 of 1537 (822399)
10-24-2017 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1431 by Modulous
10-23-2017 7:24 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

Rrhain's actual point is the same one I have made to you, that putting all your interpretational emphasis on an electoral college result that would have been opposite with just a 0.05% change in where popular votes were cast is strongly misplaced.

I have no idea what this means.

Let me explain again. Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results ignores important causative factors. It's like focusing on just the gun that caused the murder and ignoring what caused the gun to be aimed and fired.

The popular vote remains a number irrelevant to the election of President.

I think you must mean this and will defend this in a very particular way. I think you mean the national popular vote total isn't what maps onto the electoral college. That mapping happens state by state. But this point you're making?
Everyone already knows this and no one is arguing it. It's just something you've said several times now when you need a response that has the appearance of being on point but actually isn't.

Where you are right however, is that the margin to victory was small [I assume you mean in the electoral college] and if only it weren't for those few fractions of a percent of people that didn't like her enough to vote for her didn't feel that way about the candidate - the Democrats may have managed three in a row.

No, that's not what I'm saying, though it's pretty close. The part that is different is that I'm not expressing some wish that more people felt more positive about Clinton as a candidate. I'm pointing out the irony of registering a protest vote that contributed to a result opposite to what they expected or wanted. They wanted a Democrat or at least someone in that general region of the political spectrum, but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton, so they voted in such a way (or didn't vote) so as to register their dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidate. Obviously they didn't want Trump but believed (reinforced by the polls) that Clinton was going to win anyway, so they felt safe in registering a protest vote and got Trump. Oh, the irony!

You're calling it "too many" as if that tells us something meaningful about Clinton's quality as a candidate.

It simply tells us that there were too many that disliked her. If you think that speaks to her quality, then so be it.

How would anyone know how big the problem is if "too many" could be 1 too many apples or a thousand too many. As it turns out it's just one apple and the problem is non-existent, since the delivery guy just sticks one apple in his pocket. In similar fashion, a change in the way 0.05% of the popular vote was cast is miniscule.

But enough to be too many.

You're repeating your position while ignoring the argument for why it's wrong. Basically your rebuttal is "too many is too many", which is exactly what you said before, not to mention tautological and wrong. Too many apples in the form of thousands of apples sends a strong message that the packaging strategy (or something) must be changed. But too many apples in the form of one apple is just "whoops" and no message at all.

Or here's another analogy. There are two many packages to fit in the back of the UPS truck (UPS is a package delivery service). If there are many too many packages to fit on this truck and many of the trucks then this sends a message to UPS to buy more trucks and hire more drivers, and possibly even redesign and replace their trucks. But if there's just a couple too many packages then the driver just puts them up in the passenger compartment with him, and there's no real problem.

Like the analogies of the one apple and of a couple packages, you're blowing a very, very minor issue regarding the distribution of votes up into a big deal where there's some clear message about changing candidate selection procedures for the Democratic party. And it feels very much like you're expending all this energy trying to support an incredibly poor argument because you believe Sanders was a better candidate than Clinton and you want procedures in place that would have made that outcome more likely. So you cast a (hypothetical) write-in vote for Sanders to send this message to the Democratic party.

But of course that isn't the message that was received, because such things are normal occurrences in every election. That we had this discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college made 2016 out of the ordinary, but it doesn't say the Democrat's primary process is flawed. Just as Trump's win doesn't say the Republican primary process is fine. Which is necessary logically, since they're the same process.

Now I know your argument is that better processes exist, but you've presented no evidence that is so, just made claims that processes exist that could tell us such things as whether protest votes are likely to be registered, as if the closeness and bitterness of primary battles didn't already give us plenty of that kind of information.

Had the electorate been shuffled around, she may well have won (she had millions to spare in California, for example) - but the margin in the popular vote would still have been very small. In the bottom 15 of all elections.

In the bottom 15 of all elections? That's simply not possible because of the small number of votes cast in the many elections of the 1800s. The total votes cast in a presidential election probably didn't even reach Clinton's margin of popular vote victory until around the mid-1800's.

But I get your point and it's a poor one. There's nothing unusual about a small margin of victory. What's unusual is when the popular vote and the electoral college run in opposite directions, in 2016 by the largest margin in history by far.

So, had she had the same support as she had, but without as many people actively disliking her...it would have given a larger margin and made victory all the more likely. Obama succeeded acquiring that kind of margin - over 7% the first time, a little under 4% the next (which is cutting it fine). Bill Clinton had bigger margins - 8.5% and 5.5% which in the modern era is probably enough to basically guarantee the Presidency.

It's time to finally put this ridiculous argument about too many people actively disliking Clinton to bed. In every election millions of people actively dislike candidates. There can't be anything particularly unique about the number of people actively disliking Clinton because she received a very substantial number of votes, as many as Obama in the previous election.

Determinedly repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less false.

Are you seriously suggesting that if everybody liked her...everybody, she would not have a landslide?

Gee, what a difficult question. Let me reread what you quoted from me again: "Determinedly repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less false." Nope, I don't seem to be suggesting that at all.

What I was actually suggesting was that repeating the argument that Clinton "did not resonate with enough people" or that she "anti-resonated with too many people" does not overcome how many times this has been shown false.
It also speaks poorly of your position that you feel forced to make claims of fine distinction that saying "she did not resonate with 'people'" communicates significantly different information than saying "she did not resonate with *enough* people".

It isn't that we don't understand what you're saying and that you just need to use more and more careful language in order to finally get your message across. It's that we disagree with your message, think it's wrong, and believe we have shown that it's wrong.

c) People who liked neither candidate and voted elsewhere or not at all - including those that might have voted for a different Democratic candidate

Gee, you mean like Sanders? How can you keep suggesting this while having no counter to the factually obvious, that Sanders would have garnered even less votes than Clinton? We get it - you like Sanders. Doesn't mean he doesn't have his own negatives. After all, more people voted against Sanders in the Democratic primaries than voted against Clinton. The split was 60/40 in favor of Clinton.

Surely, that's just obvious, isn't it? The very opposite of a fallacy.

What you just said is not a rephrasing of what I quoted and called a fallacy. What you said in Message 1416 that I called a fallacy was this:

Modulous in Message 1416 writes:

Not really - the claim is that she did not resonate with enough people. Or in other terms she anti-resonated with too many people. This is a different claim than she did not resonate with 'people'.
...
Well no, the point of this part of the discussion is that, whatever the reasons, there were too many people that disliked her enough to not vote for her for her to get elected as President.

And as I have said multiple times, if there were no candidates able to secure more votes, the Democrats were doomed to either a marginal win or a marginal loss depending on how the cookie crumbled - unlike some other elections. And this is not a good sign for the Democrats

This argument was already destroyed with my list of lost elections followed by victory four years later.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1431 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2017 7:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1443 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2017 3:43 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1435 of 1537 (822401)
10-24-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1433 by Stile
10-24-2017 9:41 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:

Percy writes:

You mean when it comes to access to healthcare and jobs and food and a clean environment and things like that? Don't we all assume these things are in everyone's best interests?


Of course not.

You or I don't get to assume what any adult's "best interests" are.

You're being ludicrous again. Those are the major issues of many campaigns, not my assumptions. I'm not going to argue the obvious with you. I'm reading through the rest of your post now and will reply to any reasonable argument or position...

Just because you think healthcare, jobs, food, safety and a clean environment need to be everyone else's top priorities?

I didn't call them "top priorities". I said that they were in everyone's best interests. These aren't a list of interests I made up myself. This is pretty much what everyone thinks.

I do agree with one thing I think you were trying to say, which is that oftentimes it is necessary to trade off one interest against another. For example, Trump believes we should be trading a clean environment for jobs. That's why polluting streams and rivers with slag in coal country is now legal again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1433 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 9:41 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1436 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 11:21 AM Percy has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1436 of 1537 (822405)
10-24-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1435 by Percy
10-24-2017 10:41 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Percy writes:

Stile writes:

Just because you think healthcare, jobs, food, safety and a clean environment need to be everyone else's top priorities?

I didn't call them "top priorities". I said that they were in everyone's best interests. These aren't a list of interests I made up myself. This is pretty much what everyone thinks.

Ah, I see.
It's starting to sound like we agree again, you were just confused over some of my phrasing.

You didn't mean "best interests" along the lines of "top priorities..." you just meant "best interests" along the lines of ... "interests."

Then I agree with you.
I was arguing against this:

Percy writes:

I think you may be confusing my declaration that some people cast votes that were contrary to their best interests with telling people how they must vote. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

Message 1401

I've already agreed that "some people" cast votes that were contrary to their best interests.
I'm sure some voted for Jill Stein and were tricked.

My point is that not all 3rd party votes were duped or tricked.
What I'm saying is that some people did vote 3rd party, and they did not cast a vote that was contrary to their best interests.

They may have casted a vote that was contrary to some of their interests.
Just like pretty much everyone who's ever voted in the history of all elections has. Does anyone agree, 100%, with everything that any one party or platform stands for?

But since you agree that others can have top priorities or "best interests" different than yours, then I suppose you also now agree that:

It certainly can be rational, reasonable, valid, and in someone's best interests to vote 3rd party in the 2016 election.

Here, I mean "best interests" to mean their most highest of priorities.
Not just "something that is of interest to them, and is also a very high priority for most people."

Priorities that they get to decide for themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1435 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 10:41 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1438 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 12:56 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1437 of 1537 (822407)
10-24-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1418 by dronestar
10-23-2017 1:41 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Dronestar writes:

If a GERMAN Shephard can like and respect Hitler, how can I possibly argue otherwise?


Apparently you can't or you would.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by dronestar, posted 10-23-2017 1:41 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1438 of 1537 (822411)
10-24-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1436 by Stile
10-24-2017 11:21 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:

It's starting to sound like we agree again, you were just confused over some of my phrasing.

Given the discussion's history, I remain extremely skeptical that we agree or could ever agree.

You didn't mean "best interests" along the lines of "top priorities..." you just meant "best interests" along the lines of ... "interests."

No, I think in a political context that "best interests" communicates my meaning fairly precisely.

I was arguing against this:

Percy writes:

I think you may be confusing my declaration that some people cast votes that were contrary to their best interests with telling people how they must vote. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

Message 1401

I've already agreed that "some people" cast votes that were contrary to their best interests.
I'm sure some voted for Jill Stein and were tricked.

I never argued that Jill Stein voters were tricked, and I don't think that. That just happened to be in the message subtitle when I joined the conversation. I'm glad we're discussing under a different message subtitle now.

My point is that not all 3rd party votes were duped or tricked.

Okay, good point, but why are you making that point to me. That "all 3rd party voters were duped or tricked" is not an argument I ever made, nor something I believe.

What I'm saying is that some people did vote 3rd party, and they did not cast a vote that was contrary to their best interests.

By "some people" do you mean anyone, Democratic or Republican or Green Party or independents and so forth? If so then I have no objection to what you're saying, since it doesn't directly bear on my point.

But if by "some people" you do mean someone in the general political vicinity of the Democrats, which are the people I've been talking about, then you're wrong. To the extent that they cast (or didn't cast) their vote in a way that contributed to a Trump victory they obtained a result contrary to their own best interests. This is self evidently true. A Trump presidency is not something that anyone desiring a presidency somewhere in the neighborhood of the Democrats could ever consider in their best interests.

But since you agree that others can have top priorities or "best interests" different than yours,...

To me it does not seem appropriate to lump "top priorities" and "best interests" together. They are not synonyms. No, I of course do not agree.

...then I suppose you also now agree that:

It certainly can be rational, reasonable, valid, and in someone's best interests to vote 3rd party in the 2016 election.

You often say the same thing several different times in the same post, and you've done it yet again. My response is no different than what I said just above querying you about which people voting 3rd party you're talking about.

Here, I mean "best interests" to mean their most highest of priorities.

I think it might work better if we first agreed on what "best interests" means, which to me is not the same as "top priorities." Modulous is a good example of where this difference comes into play. Obviously jobs and healthcare and environment are in the best interests of Modulous, but for him LGBT issues are top priority.

Not just "something that is of interest to them, and is also a very high priority for most people."

At heart what you're doing is rewriting and redefining what I've said to mean something different than what I originally intended, and then you're asking me to agree with it. Ain't gonna happen.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1436 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 11:21 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1439 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 2:28 PM Percy has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1439 of 1537 (822413)
10-24-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1438 by Percy
10-24-2017 12:56 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
But if by "some people" you do mean someone in the general political vicinity of the Democrats, which are the people I've been talking about, then you're wrong. To the extent that they cast (or didn't cast) their vote in a way that contributed to a Trump victory they obtained a result contrary to their own best interests. This is self evidently true. A Trump presidency is not something that anyone desiring a presidency somewhere in the neighborhood of the Democrats could ever consider in their best interests.

What are you describing as a "democrat?"

Someone who agrees with all democratic policies/directions/actions? That would be a self-fulfilling statement you've made, then.
Someone who always votes democratic? Again, self-fulfilling.

I'm talking about someone who self-identifies as a democrat.... and has voted democratic in previous elections... and didn't agree with the current democratic party's policies/directions/actions on something(s) they hold particularly important.

I think it might work better if we first agreed on what "best interests" means, which to me is not the same as "top priorities." Modulous is a good example of where this difference comes into play. Obviously jobs and healthcare and environment are in the best interests of Modulous, but for him LGBT issues are top priority.

Sounds good to me.

So we're basically saying that jobs, healthcare and environment are all among their best interests.
But that LGBT issue is their #1 best interest.

I am also saying that such an example... even though they agree "jobs, healthcare, the environment and LGBT issues" are in their best interests... they may not agree that the current policies/direction of the democratic party for such issues is aligning with their own vision of the future for those issues. Although both visions would fit under the large umbrella of being considered "democratic."

I can see a few meanings for best interests:

1 - Time during the Trump presidency.
-I agree that this time-frame is not in the best interests of example-Modulous

2a - 2020 election and beyond - democrats possibly regaining power
-If it's possible for the democrats to reclaim power in the future, and also align their policies/direction closer to what example-Modulous might want... then this would be "in their best interests."
-with this in mind, it is in example-Modulous' best interests to vote 3rd party

2b - 2020 election and beyond, but Trump actually lost to Clinton and she became the president in 2016
-In this scenario, the democrats may very well take "winning the 2016 election" as an indication that they are going in the right direction with their vision of jobs, healthcare, the environment and LGBT issues. It is not unreasonable to assume that they will continue in this direction... a direction that is not in line with example-Modulous' vision of the future. This, in fact, would be going against Modulous' best interests.

Therefore, for someone to have voting-3rd party in the 2016 election to be in their best interests they require:
-to have (generally) a democratic vision for the future
-that vision for the future is not aligned completely with the vision of the pre-2016-election democratic party
-a strong aversion to the vision of the pre-2016-election democratic party
-the belief that if the democrats win the 2016 election, they will not change their vision of the future and will even solidify more into it
-the hope that the democrats will change their vision to something closer to the 3rd-party-voter's vision in the future
-the hope that the democrats will regain power (2020?) even if they don't win the 2016 election
-the hope that even if Trump wins the 2016 election, his actions will not be irreversible in the long-run

If someone (maybe Modulous? I'm not really reading all those long posts between you and him) such as that exists... I don't see how it's acceptable to say that a 3rd party vote will be contrary to their best interests. It seems to me that they would have voted exactly in line with their best interests. Regardless of whether or not "best interests" includes LGBT issues or not.

The judgment call is about how much damage Trump can do and whether or not it's reversible vs. possibly having the democratic party move farther and farther away from your democratic vision of the future and re-aligning them sooner rather than later.

I think, for many people, such a judgment call falls to voting for Clinton anyway.
I also think, though, that for some few people, such a judgment call falls for voting 3rd party. For these few people, it would be "in their best interests" to vote 3rd party.

I simply don't think the issue is objective. I think it includes quite a few subjective judgments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1438 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 12:56 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1447 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 7:22 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1440 of 1537 (822417)
10-24-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1432 by Percy
10-23-2017 9:28 PM


Re: the attribution
It looks to me more like wishful thinking for viable candidates closer to your views. You're fooling yourself that these viable candidates are out there somewhere, that we're just using the wrong tools to find them.
It's not my views which matter. I was referring to the views of the voters.
The views we're talking about are yours, namely that Clinton's loss indicates the Democrats have a flawed selection process ("Yes, it's the radar I am criticising!"), pretty much the same process as the Republicans, who won.

Two things wrong here.

A) I was responding to you saying something about I was wishing for a candidate closer to my views. My response was that I was talking about the electorates views - not my own. The radar should be optimised to finding a candidate capable of winning the most votes in the election. Whether or not that happens to be a candidate more in line with my views is immaterial to this point

B) I am not saying that Clinton's loss indicates the system is flawed. I am saying the system is flawed, and this might have contributed to Clinton's loss.

Have these alternative selection procedures you keep talking about demonstrated any superiority in selecting a candidate for the main election. I mean, is there evidence from countries that have implemented such procedures.

I don't think your standard is reasonable. I'm not saying empirical evidence is unreasonable, of course, but the kind of evidence you'd need to answer the question as worded would require running the candidate selection twice in parallel with the same candidates, and then running the election with potentially two different sets of candidates to create a proper comparison. This doesn't seem reasonable for official elections.

However, I was proposing a methodology known as Approval voting. It is used in the US in the following political contexts: Green Parties of Texas and Ohio, the Libertarian Party of Texas, and the US Modern Whig party. It has also been used in the selection process of Secretary General of the UN.

quote:
Approval voting advocates Steven Brams and Dudley R. Herschbach predict that approval voting should increase voter participation, prevent minor-party candidates from being spoilers, and reduce negative campaigning

quote:
One study showed that approval voting would not have chosen the same two winners as plurality voting (Chirac and Le Pen) in France's presidential election of 2002 (first round) – it instead would have chosen Chirac and Jospin as the top two to proceed to a runoff.[35] Le Pen lost by a very high margin in the runoff, 82.2% to 17.8%, a sign that the true top two had not been found. Straight approval voting without a runoff, from the study, still would have selected Chirac, but with an approval percentage of only 36.7%, compared to Jospin at 32.9%. Le Pen, in that study, would have received 25.1%. In the real primary election, the top three were Chirac, 19.9%, Le Pen, 16.9%, and Jospin, 16.2%.A study of various "evaluative voting" methods (approval voting and score voting) during the French presidential election, 2012 showed that "unifying" candidates tended to do better, and polarizing candidates did worse, via the evaluative voting methods than via the plurality system.

From the wiki - the 2002 study is Approval Voting : An Experiment during the French 2002 Presidential Election by Jean-François Laslier and Karine Vander Straeten

Also, you keep talking about Clinton as if she were the only one with negatives. Sanders had negatives, too.

I think you already covered them.

Say the Democrats used a procedure that resulted in the nomination of Sanders. Sanders would have lost in the electoral college bigger than Clinton, and he would not have won a majority of the popular vote. That isn't a big endorsement for your "alternative procedure" that you so obviously hope would have made Sanders the Democratic nominee.

Well you making up the results is not an endorsement obviously. And your result is possible, of course. However, it would mean that, despite Sanders getting more people who say they would vote for him in the Primaries, less people voted for him. This would not be impossible, but it would be unusual if Sanders had the support to win using Approval voting but did much worse in primary election.

You were repeating your point about the Democrats needing to find "candidates more optimally". I expect you'll keep ignoring that Clinton only lost the electoral college because of where 0.05% of the popular vote was cast, and that you'll keep arguing that the electoral college result that was determined by such a minuscule difference means Clinton wasn't the best candidate and that the Democrats need better selection procedures, but you haven't been able to argue your position in a way that makes sense to anyone.

Nope. I'm going to argue that the voting system used in the Primaries is not optimal and can result in nominating someone who would have a lower approval across the party than someone else. If that was to have been the case in 2016, even if the difference was small, it may have cost the election - but the data to verify this doesn't exist - as the other voting system was not used.

I will argue that Clinton's popular vote margin was very small. Small enough that the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner can conceivably differ.

But the number of people who vote does not go up all the time.

It goes up all the time. Not every time. A person that goes out 'all the time' is not literally always out. They just go out a lot. The margin remains more informative.

By decade the average - just counting the Presidential winner as a proxy:

2010s: 65 million
2000s: 60 million
1990s: 46 million
1980s: 49 million
1970s: 44 million
1960s: 39 million
1950s: 35 million
1940s: 27 million
1930s: 26 million
1920s: 18 million {women can now vote}
1910s: 8 million

To say it is 'the second largest in history' as if comparing it to historical data is meaningful is silly. Comparing Clinton's popular vote to Woodrow Wilson's makes no sense with absolute numbers. Wilson got 14% of the popular vote and 3% of the popular vote margins. Much better comparison. Clinton did not do as well as Wilson in either of his elections, and Wilson's 1916 victory was rightly called 'narrow' and 'razor thin'.

By decade Clinton's popular margin was 2nd of two, though it was close.

the population isn't increasing all that fast, certainly not enough to diminish the significance of Clinton's vote total.

She managed to beat both of Dubya's numbers, and got beat by both of Obama's. Trying to compare her to Bill Clinton's results is clearly wildly inappropriate given the disparity in numbers (though he got a 9% and 6% margin), and it just gets less meaningful as you go back. So yes, that does diminish the significance of the way it is worded.

You shouldn't keep offering arguments that have been shown fatally flawed. You only believe "the method of selection is non-optimal" in ways that meaningfully affect elections because Clinton lost based upon flawed reasoning.

No, I'm basing it on the mathematics of voting systems. It's certainly arguable, but I'm not basing my opinion of selection methods on the Clinton loss. Only pointing out that Clinton's loss being as marginal as it was, given the opposition from a fairly significant group of traditionally Democrat voters who expressed they would not vote Democrat this time round - makes this a potential occasion where the selection method might have made a difference.

This supposed candidate of whom you speak couldn't possibly be a Democrat

I'd have voted Sanders, who while arguably independent, was a Democrat in this case. The candidate would not need to be as left as Sanders to get my vote. I'd vote for a candidate that split the difference between Clinton and Sanders, or even someone a little more to the right than that.

That doesn't mean nobody could satisfy you, that's not what I mean. But it does mean that any candidate satisfactory to you has no chance of winning in the general election

Which either means I'll either be voting for a DNC loser or not voting for a {potential} DNC winner.

I can't stop saying what is true, and it makes no sense to shift the focus to your 50-100 year timeframe just because it's pointed out that your hypothetical protest vote in 2016 was contrary to your own best interests.

It makes sense if that is where I judge my best interests lie. You judge your best interests to be in the election in front of you. And that's fine, you can go right ahead.

You didn't explain anything.

Except why I vote the way I do. Which was the thing I was seeking to explain. Just because you disagree with the explanation does not make it not an explanation.

You *do* have interests today, one of them is wanting to come to the US

I do. But my voting strategy is not based merely on them. It is also based on longer term interests.

Now I know you say you put more emphasis on your long term interests than on your short term interests, but you personally have almost no long term interests in the 50-100 year timeframe, because during most of that timeframe you'll be dead.

I'm fine with this. If I die, and my country is in a better position politically than when I was born, I consider that a victory, politically.

It wasn't something I forgot. I was trying to track back why you were reintroducing it into the conversation.

Because it was on of your expressed views, which was one of the things we were discussing...your expressed views.

c) is dumb. Remember all the science predictions of the 1950's of rocket cars and personal flying packs? Well, looking 50-100 years out politically has just as much accuracy.

If my vote was a prediction, then yes you'd be right.

It is not a prediction. It is a statement made, on that day, for the direction I want the nation to go in.

I think "scare tactics" is the wrong term. I'm against them, but I think all the Democrats were doing was accurately characterizing Trump. That's not a scare tactic, that's just the truth. And looking back on what the Democrats said about Trump during the election anyone can see that it was the truth.

Appealing to fear does not have to be lying. One can say, "Don't walk on that ice, it may break and you'll get cold and wet, possibly even die", without lying.

But anyway, I don't know why you're singling out the Democrats. The Republicans used the same strategy. And that's pretty much the tack taken by the five currently living former presidents, including the Republicans, when they gathered recently in support of hurricane victims.

I'm not suggesting only Democrats do it, it's just that we were talking about Democrats at that point in time. If business as usual is the best method for insuring Trumpesque candidates don't get into power, then that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1432 by Percy, posted 10-23-2017 9:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1448 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 8:47 PM Modulous has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9495
96
9798
...
103Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017