|
Literally nothing in the last ten plus years has indicated that giving Dems power will push things further left
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
If you're hoping to hear me make some defense of the dems' stupid practices then I am going to disappoint you. Everything you talk about comes as a consequence from a FPTP voting system. As such, Duverger's Law reigns supreme. And again, you're indirectly criticizing me with a slippery slope argument in response to a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
your starting point is pretty much at the bottom of the slippery slope dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
A slippery slope argument isn't fallacious when you've clear evidence of the existence of the slope, the slipperiness of it, and the glee with which the objects in question seem keen to throw themselves down it entirely independently of the force of gravity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:If you're hoping to hear me make some defense of the dems' stupid practices then I am going to disappoint you. Everything you talk about comes as a consequence from a FPTP voting system. As such, Duverger's Law reigns supreme. Here's the thing: it's not "oh ir could be a slippery slope", we're fuckin on it, we slipped ages ago and we're sliding down it right now and you're basically going well maybe if I grease my rear end up now I'll actually stop sliding later And like, maybe But on the other hand, recorded history
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:If you're hoping to hear me make some defense of the dems' stupid practices then I am going to disappoint you. Everything you talk about comes as a consequence from a FPTP voting system. As such, Duverger's Law reigns supreme. Thing is that it doesn't. There's nothing in Duverger's law that requires both parties to be lovely, that's just a result of the choices that bad dems have been making for the past few decades. Hell, just look at the U.K. right now and compare Labour to the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
The 2016 election is making me seriously doubt the conventional wisdom of "Democrats doing poorly never compels them to become better" (which is more or less the main logic behind lesser evil voting always being optimal). Even though the party itself is obviously resisting change, I feel like our society is having a bunch of discussions about certain topics that would have never occurred had Clinton won (or at least they wouldn't have been acknowledged as much by the media). Now, was it worth Trump becoming president? Probably not*, but it still means there's some consideration of pros and cons at play and it's not impossible that Democrats failing could prompt positive change. *If, by some miracle, Democrats end up passing universal healthcare or some similarly significant good legislation after regaining power (and Trump doesn't start a war) it might be possible to actually judge the 2016 outcome positively in hindsight, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. At best we've probably just pushed up the schedule for any future adoption of more left-leaning policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Thing is that it doesn't. There's nothing in Duverger's law that requires both parties to be lovely, that's just a result of the choices that bad dems have been making for the past few decades. That comparison is a good one also in terms of how the two parties are structured, which is very different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The 2016 election is making me seriously doubt the conventional wisdom of "Democrats doing poorly never compels them to become better" (which is more or less the main logic behind lesser evil voting always being optimal). Even though the party itself is obviously resisting change, I feel like our society is having a bunch of discussions about certain topics that would have never occurred had Clinton won (or at least they wouldn't have been acknowledged as much by the media). Now, was it worth Trump becoming president? Probably not*, but it still means there's some consideration of pros and cons at play and it's not impossible that Democrats failing could prompt positive change. imo, a trump or trump-like president was inevitable on the old trajectory we were on. the establishment dems were not resisting sliding right at all. so, if trump didn't become president in 2016, he or someone worse would've been president in 2020. the dems have been paving the path to trump for years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Thing is that it doesn't. There's nothing in Duverger's law that requires both parties to be lovely, that's just a result of the choices that bad dems have been making for the past few decades. It does however demonstrate that voting third party is a pointless endeavor and that's my rational for making the choice and voting for one of the two parties that best represents my position. That was ultimately what the hypothetical was about and what this thread is about, isn't it? Everything beyond that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. And as usual I consider third party voting to be irrational, and I would never abstain from voting. In short, yes, I advocate for such voting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Why is it so controversial to put forth the notion that you have to give voters a reason to vote for you to make them go out to vote for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:It does however demonstrate that voting third party is a pointless endeavor and that's my rational for making the choice and voting for one of the two parties that best represents my position. That was ultimately what the hypothetical was about and what this thread is about, isn't it? Everything beyond that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Do you even know what Duverger was actually saying? Because he pretty explicitly rejected this absolutism that you're describing here. Like, the dude was making a descriptive statement and you're trying to paint it as normative, which is kinda dishonest. Then, of course, there's the detail that your approach doesn't work in reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why is it so controversial to put forth the notion that you have to give voters a reason to vote for you to make them go out to vote for you? I'm not arguing against this. Cerebral Bore posted:Do you even know what Duverger was actually saying? Because he pretty explicitly rejected this absolutism that you're describing here. Like, the dude was making a descriptive statement and you're trying to paint it as normative, which is kinda dishonest. Hardly? Sure Duverger believed that it was possible for more parties to come out from the older parties, but we have few historical cases of that happening, especially in America. Cerebral Bore posted:Then, of course, there's the detail that your approach doesn't work in reality. Explain. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
How do people feel about the accuracy of polling data? I feel like that has a lot to do with how you approach the situation. If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes, but if you feel that polling data is completely inaccurate then you might assume that it is possible for a third party candidate to come from behind to win. From my point of view, American politicians owe almost nothing to their respective bases, because the design of the system only allows for a majority party candidate to win, so a voter's actual choice in the matter is severely restricted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:53
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why is it so controversial to put forth the notion that you have to give voters a reason to vote for you to make them go out to vote for you? Because establishment Democrats don't wanna. They feel they're owed the votes of those that they once made a slight verbal concession to, or another Democrat did, and that's that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 11:04
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:How do people feel about the accuracy of polling data? I feel like that has a lot to do with how you approach the situation. If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes, but if you feel that polling data is completely inaccurate then you might assume that it is possible for a third party candidate to come from behind to win. The data itself is good, but the way the data is interpreted is the biggest goddamn pile of bullshit you'll ever see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"Lesser Evilism" implies that it is, in fact, the lesser evil. So yeah, I'd do it. It sucks and I won't be happy about it but I'd feel a lot worse if instead of "no LGBTQ protections" we got "mandatory conversion therapy". I know that's cold comfort for gay/trans people, but until we are rid of FPTP voting systems it's unfortunately what we're left with. There's absolutely no reason to settle for "no LGBT protections", though. It's a false choice, and also a false threat - as the Democrats make sure to point out very loudly every time they control the government, there's a lot that the majority can't do without the consent of the minority. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the GOP can't go and pass a national bathroom bill...at least, not unless a few conservative Dems who oppose LGBT rights flip and vote with the GOP! Which, unfortunately, happens fairly often when you assume that electing conservative Dems is cool and good. Spanish Matlock posted:How do people feel about the accuracy of polling data? I feel like that has a lot to do with how you approach the situation. If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes, but if you feel that polling data is completely inaccurate then you might assume that it is possible for a third party candidate to come from behind to win. We don't "have" to vote for whoever's likely to win. After all, the Dems are happy to tell minority groups to wait and play the long-term game when it comes to their rights, even if it means suffering some losses in the meantime; why shouldn't that be applied to Dems as well? Look at how much more open the Dems are to leftism after losing an election, and how much better a position they'll be in come November? Right now, their biggest weaknesses are self-inflicted: their unwillingness to commit to repealing the tax bill they've been telling us for months was horrible, and the fact that they blatantly threw the Dreamers under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:How do people feel about the accuracy of polling data? I feel like that has a lot to do with how you approach the situation. If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why? Suppose you live in Idaho where the Republican candidate is projecting to win 99.whatever% of the time, do you then almost have to vote Republican? How is voting Democrat or third party different in Idaho where your vote is guaranteed to not matter in any scenario? I mean it would depend on the numbers, but if it were actually 99% Republican .5% Democrat .5% Jill Stein then you'd be justified in doing either. In the last Taipei mayoral election there was a popular independent running, so the opposition party stepped aside and let him go on to beat the incumbent. They realized that only one person can win, and it would be better to have an independent who supported some of their ideas than an opponent who supported none of them. FPTP is always going to be a numbers game. The question that's being asked is really only "which of these two is better?" Would it have made sense in Taipei for all three parties to have duked it out to the finish? Could that have resulted in anything but a win for the incumbent? Main Paineframe posted:We don't "have" to vote for whoever's likely to win. After all, the Dems are happy to tell minority groups to wait and play the long-term game when it comes to their rights, even if it means suffering some losses in the meantime; why shouldn't that be applied to Dems as well? Look at how much more open the Dems are to leftism after losing an election, and how much better a position they'll be in come November? Right now, their biggest weaknesses are self-inflicted: their unwillingness to commit to repealing the tax bill they've been telling us for months was horrible, and the fact that they blatantly threw the Dreamers under the bus. I mean history will ultimately tell whether the Trump administration did more harm than any eventual swing back can undo, we're really like 1/8th of the way through at this point, but don't be super surprised if the Dems run Hillary 2020 or someone very much like her. FPTP elections won't go away and the Dems are there until and unless another party takes their place in the big two. So what do they really have to sweat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:I mean history will ultimately tell whether the Trump administration did more harm than any eventual swing back can undo On issues like DACA (deportation), poverty (functional slavery, missed opportunity), healthcare (death)... there are victims without an "undo" option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:I mean it would depend on the numbers, but if it were actually 99% Republican .5% Democrat .5% Jill Stein then you'd be justified in doing either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:No. How does that work? Earlier you suggested there was some sort of requirement to vote for one of the two parties that have a majority of votes. That implies if it's 99% Republican, you need to vote for Republican. Show your work. And I'm the one posting in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:On issues like DACA (deportation), poverty (functional slavery, missed opportunity), healthcare (death)... there are victims without an "undo" option. All the more reason not to vote for people who won't support single payer, look at all the deaths that have stacked up since the Dems passed on single payer in 2009
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:On issues like DACA (deportation), poverty (functional slavery, missed opportunity), healthcare (death)... there are victims without an "undo" option. You don't have to tell me, I'm a pragmatic lesser of two evils voter. I voted Bernie in the primaries because I thought it would be good to have a president who was left of center one time in my lifetime, and then Hillary in the general because that's how the math worked out. I'm pretty sure Clinton would have been a pretty boring center right continuation of Obama's policies, so I'm feeling pretty justified that her evil would have been lesser than this one. twodot posted:No. How does that work? Earlier you suggested there was some sort of requirement to vote for one of the two parties that have a majority of votes. That implies if it's 99% Republican, you need to vote for Republican. Show your work. There is no second party sharing the majority of votes. The number two is the one that's one bigger than one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:There is no second party sharing the majority of votes. The number two is the one that's one bigger than one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok again, why? Why only consider the top two parties instead of the top 10? We've established it's not "because they can win" because you're fine voting for people who can't possibly win in Republican states. Because in a first past the post system there is only a winner and a runner up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes, The problem here is that you assume the majority of people are rational and will come to this same logical rational conclusion that you've just posted. They are not. The people you're talking to on this board are, for the most part, rational voters who understand this, but the vast millions of "voters" in the public, the ones who don't know who their Congressperson is or what an "issue" even is, those people are not voting by your rational logic. You're yelling at the wrong crowd and the crowd you want to reach is too stupid to figure out your logic. They just want to vote for whichever candidate they like more. This is why you run charming charismatic candidates who actually can get people excited. This is called "campaigning"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Because in a first past the post system there is only a winner and a runner up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:On issues like DACA (deportation), poverty (functional slavery, missed opportunity), healthcare (death)... there are victims without an "undo" option. it's too bad then that the dems completely abandoned dreamers, and refused to do what was needed back when they had power
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:I mean history will ultimately tell whether the Trump administration did more harm than any eventual swing back can undo, we're really like 1/8th of the way through at this point, but don't be super surprised if the Dems run Hillary 2020 or someone very much like her. FPTP elections won't go away and the Dems are there until and unless another party takes their place in the big two. So what do they really have to sweat? If the Dems run Hillary 2020 then they'll have a pretty good shot at losing, and even if they somehow manage to pull through on the strength of Trump hatred, the Dems will get thrashed in 2022 and the GOP will take back the White House in 2024. The thing that's important is the long game. It's okay to lose one election if you're laying the foundation for a number of future victories. Otherwise you end up with something like the last ten years, where Obama won big in 2008 and then presided over a historic decline in Dem power nationwide, while the GOP lost in 2008 and then transformed that into near-total domination of American politics. Sure, the Dems had the presidency, but their obsession with leaning conservative to protect the Blue Dogs backfired tremendously; they ended up pursuing a garbage middle-of-the-road legislative plan that actively pissed off the base but wasn't far enough right to win over Republicans, who simply moved even further to the right. It left them with nothing to campaign on except the ACA, which many of them actively refused to campaign on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Sounds to me like Potato Salad is making a case for not voting for conservative Dems, because DREAMers who get deported can't wait until the 12th of never when 59 Democrats will join 3 Republicans to pass protections for them into law, instead of the Democratic Party stabbing them in the back and giving 6 of those Democrats permission to defect and vote with the racists to keep them in limbo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sounds to me like Potato Salad is making a case for not voting for conservative Dems, because DREAMers who get deported can't wait until the 12th of never when 59 Democrats will join 3 Republicans to pass protections for them into law, instead of the Democratic Party stabbing them in the back and giving 6 of those Democrats permission to defect and vote with the racists to keep them in limbo. Actually I mostly just listen to what immigration activists say. In real loving life
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Actually I mostly just listen to what immigration activists say.  And what do they say about voting for Democrats like Manchin who want to deport them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I will leave that to be your own personal exercise. I get a sense that you don't get out very much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
I will admit, manchin doesn't usually come up in Georgia The immediate needs of immigrants concern present and pernicious ice agents
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
I'll take that as a tacit admission that immigration activists don't want to vote for people who will deport their loved ones. Just as I would never vote for someone who wants me and people in my community to be able to be fired from our jobs and denied housing, even if that candidate is on Team Blue. Now what's easier: convincing people who will say die without single payer to vote for their own deaths because "this candidate will help other groups, unless it's politically advantageous to betray them in which case he will do that but will help yet another group, unless it's politically advantageous to betray them too, but..." or to just offer people a health care plan that will save their lives and offer LGBT people legal protections against discrimination and also offer immigrants an ironclad promise to vote for the DREAM Act with no betrayals tolerated?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I really want to tell my personal story here Wow, sounds like the left should have united in the first round instead of doing the typical squabbling which allowed Macron and Le Pen be the two choices in the second round. I guess that would have required a bunch of people to have voted for a "lesser evil" instead of their preferred candidate though, boo hoo hoo. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Maybe centrists shouldn't have voted for one of the most evil first-round candidates: Macron Then he wouldn't be running France into the ground and helping the fash get closer to winning next time
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe centrists shouldn't have voted for one of the most evil first-round candidates: Macron Read this post again. Out loud. Slowly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Hey Potato Salad, are you ever going to address the fact that your arguments ITT logically contradict each other or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 21:05
|
|