1756: "I'm With Her"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:03 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
bondsbw wrote:We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting, and to get rid of the electoral college.


Actually, if the electoral college was updated to use preference lists, this would fit nicely into our system to get instant-runoff voting inside the electoral college. This would give third party candidates a really fair shot without causing the strategic voting problems of actually voting for a third party.


I'm not sure why you think that. (Not saying you are wrong, I just don't understand your point of view.)

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Vir4030 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
xkcdfan wrote:the guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women, ran his business into the ground and had to declare bankruptcy six times, hires illegal immigrants then turns around and calls Mexican people "rapists", thinks we should build a wall even though it's been proven that our increased border security has only resulted in a rise in undocumented workers coming over, has a running mate who signed a bill in Indiana last year that would have allowed any business to discriminate against LGBT people for "religious" reasons, once said he would have sex with his own daughter if they weren't related...

Wrong.

Are you ironically mocking Trump with an unelaborated denial of demonstrable facts, or are you unironically denying all of those things are true?

This was humor. I'm glad xkcdfan got it. I needed a laugh from xkcd today. Thankfully, it's coming from the forums. :)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:11 pm UTC

I first assumed it was a joke, but then I remembered some of the actual things real Trump supporters have actually said, and second-guessed myself.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

radidoo200 wrote:Really? You could have used your power to promote a 3rd party (any third party!) making a push to actually change this broken 2-party system. And instead you give us a boring endorsement for the usual lesser of two evils? Sad, sad, sad.

Calling the first woman president, a 40-year vetaran of law and politics, who has been under a slime attack by the GOP and authoritarian wannabees for her entire career, "lesser" than the orange oilslick The Donald in any sense is ridiculous.

If she was evil, she wouldn't be the lesser of two evils. She's be Satan's boss.

I may not agree with her on many things, but she's one badass woman.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

Look, guys: this could be the last XKCD comic ever, and the next-to-last-day that echochamber forums exist, depending on the official votecount Tues nite. Let's all be respectful and give each other a last hug, take turns in the comfy chair, and ...


oh, yeah, and then grab all our guns and bottled water and prepare for the end of the universe as we know it.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Boilerplate » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

I'll go with the comic-drawer who's been making accurate predictions for a year about this election, including predicting Trump's landslide tomorrow:
http://blog.dilbert.com/

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SerialTroll » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
xkcdfan wrote:the guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women, ran his business into the ground and had to declare bankruptcy six times, hires illegal immigrants then turns around and calls Mexican people "rapists", thinks we should build a wall even though it's been proven that our increased border security has only resulted in a rise in undocumented workers coming over, has a running mate who signed a bill in Indiana last year that would have allowed any business to discriminate against LGBT people for "religious" reasons, once said he would have sex with his own daughter if they weren't related...

Wrong.

Are you ironically mocking Trump with an unelaborated denial of demonstrable facts, or are you unironically denying all of those things are true?

This was humor. I'm glad xkcdfan got it. I needed a laugh from xkcd today. Thankfully, it's coming from the forums. :)


Poe's Law... I have given up on trying to read sarcasm into anyone's post. No matter how over-the-top stupid a post may be, there exists a person who would say it and mean it. I had a conversation with a guy who swears that blacks had it better under slavery in this country... I thought he was yanking my chain and he got mad when I laughed.

Vertices
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Vertices » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:18 pm UTC

bondsbw wrote:So sad that smart people are backing her or Trump.

We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting, and to get rid of the electoral college. None of that will happen this election, but voting for a third-party candidate will provide federal funding for their party next cycle and could help raise awareness that there are more choices and how much these changes are desperately needed.

The vast majority of US voters live in states that are solid red or solid blue. If you live in one of these states, your vote is a waste anyway, so vote for a third-party candidate and help them get to the 5% popular vote required for funding in 2020.


I agree the current system isn't great, but if people don't like the nominated Rep or Dem candidates, well, that should have been dealt with in the primaries. Now is waaay too late in the game to wish for different rules.

Smart people are backing her now because she is the only one with a realistic shot at preventing the destruction of US influence/power/reputation that would occur under an Orange Toddler administration.
Last edited by Vertices on Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby HES » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

darthmark wrote:Not American here, but I always thought anti-H posters were legit trolls. Surprised to find posts above with so much vitriol against her.

I think that's something that many Not American observers have been underestimating - a lot of Americans really, really hate Hillary.
He/Him/His Image

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Vir4030 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:23 pm UTC

bondsbw wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
bondsbw wrote:We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting, and to get rid of the electoral college.


Actually, if the electoral college was updated to use preference lists, this would fit nicely into our system to get instant-runoff voting inside the electoral college. This would give third party candidates a really fair shot without causing the strategic voting problems of actually voting for a third party.


I'm not sure why you think that. (Not saying you are wrong, I just don't understand your point of view.)


Imagine a simple change - a constitutional amendment that said something like "Electors should be sent to the Electoral College with a sorted preference list of candidates for President and Vice President. They are required to vote for the top candidate on their list which has not yet been eliminated. Once all of their candidates have been eliminated, they may vote for any candidate they choose." (not vetted by a lawyer, but you get the gist)

Now, there was a lot of talk about Bernie Sanders running third party this year. Jill Stein offered him the Green Party nomination, but he declined. The reason is because this would have almost certainly handed the election to Trump. Hillary and Bernie would split the Democrat vote in almost every state, giving them all to Trump who would win in a landslide. So he didn't do that, of course. But let's say we had this amendment and he did run. What would happen?

Each state could decide how to determine their electoral preference list. The fairest way would be for all voters to rank their candidates. Whoever ends up with the highest net ranking would be first. Then eliminating that candidate, whoever is left with the highest would be second, etc. There are some states where Hillary has the most support, and I would assume it would be Hillary, Bernie, Trump in those states. There are some states where Trump has the most support, and I would assume it would be Trump, Bernie, Hillary in those states. Then there are other states which would be Bernie, Trump, Hillary or Bernie, Hillary, Trump - something people would be unafraid to do because of the preference list. Even if Bernie is eliminated first, the state's preference of Hillary over Trump or vice versa would still be held.

Then when you get to the electoral college, you look at the first vote for everyone. I assume nobody has a majority here, so whoever is last is eliminated. If it's Bernie, then you have the same Hillary vs Trump using the preference lists and nothing is different than it would be anyways, so no loss. But if it's Hillary or Trump, then you end up in a two-way race between Bernie and one of the others, taking into account the second choices of the states who chose the losing candidate first. Assuming that Trump and Hillary's supporters both would choose Bernie over the other, this would elect Bernie Sanders as the "consensus" candidate.

Of course, this assumes Sanders is the 2nd choice. If, for example, Hillary was the second choice for Trump's states over Bernie, then Hillary would win. But a system like this allows us to maintain fairness, while allowing third party candidates to participate without being considered a "spoiler" for the election.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

Ah this will piss some people of.^^

Anyway good luck tomorrow America, lets hope the day ends with a rant about the election being rigged from one of the candidates! (Well it would be even better if he lost gracefully, but what are the chances?)

About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.
Last edited by PeteP on Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

alanbbent wrote:Funniest xkcd in a while.

I disagree.*

I'm a dutch citizen, so this "PSA" doesn't help me in any way. Even if I could vote, I wouldn't want a webcomic tell me which party to back. (especially not without arguments —even tellsell provides arguments to buy their stuff)
These past two years have been painful for me** because literally everyone in the Netherlands has been talking more about the travesty known as an election than about our own government. Think about it: the people we actually elect and who actually have a significant influence on our lives get less attention than two one foreigner running for president in another country. For two years. Our parties' campaigning lasts less than a year and they only get significant attention a couple of weeks before the elections.
I don't want one extra kick to the gut by a "webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language".


Reka wrote:(1) be very, very thankful

Except don't. (1) Randall is mostly preaching to the choir, (2) he could've easily placed this "comic" above an actual comic (or as a header above all comics) and (3) he could've placed the useful information without siding with one particular candidate.
...and he could've turned the URLs into clickable links (using an image map as in, for example, the museum).


Vir4030 wrote:I see Randall also has a troubling lack of integrity.
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/

Maybe it's a change of priorities, it doesn't have to be a lack of integrity.
Or it's a change of heart and he likes opaqueness nowadays —does it count as lack of integrity if you switch views over 8 years?

*I'm aware of the sarcasm/cynicism in your post
**Yes, I found a way to feel superior to both. Sue me for wanting discussions on important topics. By now a lot of people in the Netherlands are more educated on the programmes of the Democrats and the Republicans than on the VVD, PvdA, SP, CDA, D66, PVV, Christenunie, GroenLinks, SGP, PvdD, VNL and 50Plus combined.

User avatar
dash
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby dash » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

Wow, seeing this was a real letdown. On the face of it it seems really dangerous to weigh in on a candidate who is loathed by 60% of the public.

The other side is, maybe it's best for the US if she wins, she might just finish the job I hoped Obama would do but failed miserably at:

END THE INSANE US EMPIRE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!

Maybe she'll alienate the rest of the world so much they'll nuke us back into the stone age like we deserve. We can only hope...
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby HES » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:30 pm UTC

xkcdfan wrote:It's really weird how these people are complaining about Randall exercising his right to free speech. But if their comments got deleted from this thread they'd probably start whining about BUT MUH FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

Oh, it doesn't take deleting comments for that to happen. Just start disagreeing with people.
He/Him/His Image

Sabina
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:31 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sabina » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:32 pm UTC

You know, Randall, considering the fact that your comics aren't nearly as good as they used to be, I don't think it wise to jump into the political foray and potentially alienate a portion of your readers. :roll:

jimmosk
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 2:06 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby jimmosk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:35 pm UTC

The "get a ride to the polls" link seems to be to a site that's just for people in one section of Nebraska!

Anyone know of a similar site that's good for all/more of the USA?

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Vir4030 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.


The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.

cjm
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cjm » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

Thanks, Randall. I think she'll make a good, wonkish, progressive, realistic president, and I hope she gets the chance.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
alanbbent wrote:Funniest xkcd in a while.

I disagree.*

I'm a dutch citizen, so this "PSA" doesn't help me in any way. Even if I could vote, I wouldn't want a webcomic tell me which party to back. (especially not without arguments —even tellsell provides arguments to buy their stuff)
These past two years have been painful for me** because literally everyone in the Netherlands has been talking more about the travesty known as an election than about our own government. Think about it: the people we actually elect and who actually have a significant influence on our lives get less attention than two one foreigner running for president in another country. For two years. Our parties' campaigning lasts less than a year and they only get significant attention a couple of weeks before the elections.
I don't want one extra kick to the gut by a "webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language".

ETA for your salvation: 2 days.
Flumble wrote:By now a lot of people in the Netherlands are more educated on the programmes of the Democrats and the Republicans than on the VVD, PvdA, SP, CDA, D66, PVV, Christenunie, GroenLinks, SGP, PvdD, VNL and 50Plus combined.

To be fair, the knowledge on both is generally shaky. At least people do have vague ideas about what some of those parties want.
HES wrote:
darthmark wrote:Not American here, but I always thought anti-H posters were legit trolls. Surprised to find posts above with so much vitriol against her.

I think that's something that many Not American observers have been underestimating - a lot of Americans really, really hate Hillary.

Why?
Vir4030 wrote:
PeteP wrote:About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.


The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.

But couldn't the electors be elected by proportional representation on a state level? Instead of all or none? Besides, did this fix the nine states decide the election problem?

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:44 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
PeteP wrote:About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.


The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.

You can if you want still give states the same number of votes no need to bind them to actual people. (Or you could just use them as a weighting factor for the actual votes though that might get complicated with the better voting systems , with fptp you can say that candidate got 59% of the votes in the state so they get 59% of the ec votes of the state but what do you do with condorcet? I guess you could just multiply the number of ballots for a configuration by the number of votes the state has. I think that should work but haven't thought much about it.) The ec with actual electors is in no way necessary to maintain the weighting.

yawningdog
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:00 pm UTC
Location: Glen Allen, Virginia

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby yawningdog » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks once. But I fear the man who has practiced one kick ten thousand times."
- Bruce Lee

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 753
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

SerialTroll wrote:That's nice. Randall can endorse who he wants to endorse on any platform that he has. If you don't like it, you are free to voice your opinion like you have done. But, frankly, I am not sure why Randall's success means that he is not permitted to use it to get his message out.

I never said he wasn't permitted, I just said it was something I didn't like for a variety of reasons I've already outlined. Some of them aren't specific to Randall and some of them are to a degree.
xkcdfan wrote:It's really weird how these people are complaining about Randall exercising his right to free speech. But if their comments got deleted from this thread they'd probably start whining about BUT MUH FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

I probably wouldn't do that, considering I've never even set my foot in the USA rendering any amendments moot. And also because I can just PM the mods to ask why they deleted my post and receive a valid reason based on the forum rules. In case it turns out my comment was deleted due to someone not liking what I said, I might actually raise my voice.
Avatar from Freddino
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord◯‐◯―

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

cupric wrote:It's a grim business, when either a womanizing con man or a career criminal is going to be the next POTUS ... This is not even coherent political commentary. It's just virtue signalling ...
Signalling virtue by declaring support for a career criminal?

Please return yourself to the maintenance depot to have your screws reinserted and correctly tightened.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

kcerb
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby kcerb » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:52 pm UTC

Yes he has endorsed a candidate before:

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/

The awkward thing is that he accurately states in that post some good reasons to not vote for Clinton. I'm sorry to see him waste a comic on this and to have no caveat explaining that he's now endorsing a "not the other guy" candidate :(

If you're running from someone, it's better to state why than to look like you actually support the other guy.

A quote from the post linked to above

" . . . when questioned [Clinton] seems baffled that anyone would have a problem with what is, by any reasonable standard, bribery. I find her basic lack of integrity troubling . . ."

PS. Yes, I know someone else already linked to that blog post, but I don't like the way they did it. No need to question the author's integrity.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:54 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:I see Randall also has a troubling lack of integrity.

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/


Posted on 2008-01-28 by randallpmunroe
So this will be a one-time thing — after this post, you’ll hear no more political advocacy on this site for the rest of the election. Please support Barack Obama.


I know election campaigns can feel eternal, but I'm pretty sure the election in question happened that year, there's been another one since and this year's is a different one again. You may have noticed that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is running for election as the next PotUS this time. That could be considered a clue. You don't have to consider it a clue, of course. I can't make you consider anything.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:54 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
bondsbw wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
bondsbw wrote:We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting, and to get rid of the electoral college.


Actually, if the electoral college was updated to use preference lists, this would fit nicely into our system to get instant-runoff voting inside the electoral college. This would give third party candidates a really fair shot without causing the strategic voting problems of actually voting for a third party.


I'm not sure why you think that. (Not saying you are wrong, I just don't understand your point of view.)


Imagine a simple change - a constitutional amendment that said something like "Electors should be sent to the Electoral College with a sorted preference list of candidates for President and Vice President. They are required to vote for the top candidate on their list which has not yet been eliminated. Once all of their candidates have been eliminated, they may vote for any candidate they choose." (not vetted by a lawyer, but you get the gist)


Not disagreeing with the idea... but tell me... which of the two major political parties do you suppose you're going to convince to change the system that currently ensures that only the two major political parties has a snowballs chance in hell of winning?

If the GOP and DNC had their way, you wouldn't even have the option of voting for a third party; much less the sort of thing you're talking about.

It's kind of like expecting Congress to pass Congressional term limits... sounds great on paper, but yeah fucking right.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

slinches wrote:I'm just disappointed that there's no comic today. I don't begrudge Randall having an opinion. It just would have been nice if there was some humor, a meaningful point or something to go along with it. It's just an empty endorsement ad.


Kind of where I'm at. Eh, they're not all winners, I guess. Better luck next time. I look forward to politics decreasing a bit once the post election elation/grief dies off.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.


That's actually a pretty vague statement considering...

IdahoEv
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:53 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby IdahoEv » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

Frankly I am an enthusiastic supporter or HRC, she's not a "lesser evil" for me, I think she's one of the most pragmatic and more ethical politicans in this country right now. I'd be happy to defend that statement elsewhere but that's not why I'm replying to you.

bondsbw wrote:So sad that smart people are backing her or Trump.


I felt that way after the Nader/Gore/Bush three-way election. Then I went and learned some political science and game theory.

Go read about Duverger's Law. It is well accepted in political science that a system with our (the USA's) voting structure has a single, mathematically stable solution: a pair of national parties. This is dictated by mathematics and game theory.

Until or unless our voting structure changes, the primary function of any third party is to siphon votes from the party most similar to them, which causes two things:

  • It causes the most-similar major party to win fewer elections.
  • It drives the most-similar major party the other direction, politically speaking.


So a "successful" Green Party with 5% matching funds would still not win many elections, and never the presidency, but it would push the entire Democratic party to the right to try to capture more of the middle in response. It defeats its own purpose.

With our voting laws, even if you open parties on both ends of the spectrum, it doesn't absolve you of strategic voting. Suppose we get Green and Labor parties on the left, squeezing the democrats, and White Nationalist and Pro-Corporate parties on the right, squeezing the GOP.

If you're a centrist, you don't want an extreme win in either direction, so your best move is to vote Dem or GOP.

If you're on the far left and would (say) prefer the Labor party, your best strategy is still to vote Dem. Because weakening the Dems risks throwing the election to the GOP, which is worse for you, or opens a chance for the White Nationalists to win which is a much worse outcome for you. If you're a hardcore pro-business voter on the far right, voting for the Corporate party weakens the GOP, increasing the Dem chance of victory or even opening the door to a Labor party win.

In every case, your best strategic move is to go back to the center party closest to your beliefs. The marginal parties die and we're back to two parties again.

We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting,


I agree. But voting third party in national elections does not accomplish this: all it does is anti-strategically harm your own personal goals as above. This isn't a chicken-and-egg problem: the change to the voting system clearly must come first. When Nader threw the election to Bush (and yes, it's clear that's what happened) a LOT of smart people cried out for ranked balloting. Most voters still never even heard of it. We can't make the change from that direction.

If you want a more diverse political ecosystem, advocate at the local and state level for ranked balloting, Condorcet scoring, and proportional representation in your local and state elections. If enough of that happens, it might slowly help pull the country towards those (admittedly better) voting systems. There's no chance of a national movement for ranked balloting or proportional representation being successful until a large number of local & state experiences with those systems make the american electorate more familiar with them.

and to get rid of the electoral college.


There IS a chance for elimination of the electoral college, a goal I am 100% in agreement with. The Electoral College is a travesty and 70% of American voters are in favor of eliminating it (polls have shown that ever since the 1940's!). The National Interstate Popular Vote Compact requires zero national action lets states basically commit to throwing every election for the popular vote winner. It only triggers if enough states commit to it to override the electoral college. And it's closer than you think. When California signed on, it reached 61.7% of the goal of making it a reality.

IMHO the next best target for the NIPVC is Texas. It has 38 EVs and gets completely ignored in presidential elections because it is reliably red. The NIPVC would get national candidates paying attention to Texas and the needs of Texans again, which would be better for the people of that state.

voting for a third-party candidate will provide federal funding for their party next cycle ... vote for a third-party candidate and help them get to the 5% popular vote required for funding in 2020.


... Which will have exactly the opposite effect you desire. Again, see Duverger's Law. A third party cannot stably compete: if it doesn't completely overcome and replace one party, the best it can do mathematically is harm the next-most-similar party.

Another note on a multiparty system. There's no guarantee it's really what you want. Maybe it will help but consider: legitimizing the Green and Libertarian parties ALSO means opening the door for legitimized white nationalist and fascist parties. And if you don't think those would win seats in today's climate, you haven't been paying attention to the sociopolitical drivers of Trump's success. Many European nations have systems that allow for multiple stable parties ... and they have many of the same problems we do, except with explicitly racist parties winning seats and being entites the government is forced to take seriously. I'm not certain that's worth it.

EDIT: Fix markup & clarify wording
Last edited by IdahoEv on Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:16 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 753
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

NotAllThere wrote:
somitomi wrote:I don't see the joke here, and since I know bugger all about US politics, I'm not even sure where to look. Or if I should be looking for anything at all.

The jokes are in the comments!

They're rather bleak to be honest
Avatar from Freddino
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord◯‐◯―

radidoo200
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby radidoo200 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Calling the first woman president, a 40-year vetaran of law and politics, who has been under a slime attack by the GOP and authoritarian wannabees for her entire career, "lesser" than the orange oilslick The Donald in any sense is ridiculous.


Let's be clear, this time, the lesser is a lot lesser than usual (the disparity is immense), but I'm just saddened that someone with this much weekly publicity used it for a boring endorsement. He could have pushed for real change. Killing the electoral college, killing the ridiculous notion that there are only two candidates.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SerialTroll » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:06 pm UTC

yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.


I think you must be using words that you don't know the meaning of...

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Weeks » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

I personally cannot stand the site of Hilleary S. Clinton, wife of the ex-president, partner in crime, and fellow Jackass Bill N. Clinton. My heart is filled with greef as I see a once great nation plounge into these deepest of depths, when our American virtues are being diluted, and our fair Country is being reduced to a mockery, a meer shadow of it's former glory, thanks to the efforts of this WAR CRIMINAL. I am for sure certain that our fathers would be ashamed to see us in this sistuation. Thomas Jefferson, Paul Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, if you can some how hear me, on behalf f the American nation, I apologize.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:08 pm UTC

Vertices wrote:I agree the current system isn't great, but if people don't like the nominated Rep or Dem candidates, well, that should have been dealt with in the primaries.


We were screaming from the top of our lungs during the primaries! The primaries are a symptom of this broken system; they wouldn't matter much if we had a better voting system, because then the "loser" could just run as an independent (and a centrist is much more likely to win in such a scenario).

ECK138
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:38 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ECK138 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

NotAllThere wrote:HIGNFYsaid something like "Will the USA end up with the worst president in history, or one even worse".

However, I will say that of all currently extant politicians globally, the only one I think could make a career in stand-up comedy is Obama.


Senator Al Franken

User avatar
KeyserSoze
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KeyserSoze » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.
"Unindicted felon" means "innocent person", right?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that, the cornerstone of the American legal system?

Vir4030 wrote:
PeteP wrote:About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.


The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.
I'm sure I read on Twitter that two (Democrat) electors in Washington DC are promising to not vote for Hilary, even if their states go to her.

As a non-American, I don't understand how that is a) democratic or b) supporting the will of the people...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

I for one like that he's supporting a candidate rather than shouting out negative opinions about the other.

Of the candidates available, I can't see him going for Stein, mayyyybe Johnson on some issues, but definitely not Trump and so the choice is really between gross anti-Trumpness (not going to lie, I think Trump needs plenty of arguing against, but that's my opinion) or "vote for the one who can stop Trump". And I'm happy to see that this is what he's done, in a simple and uncomplicated and calm way, well within his First Amendment rights.

There have been other point-making comics we've part-collectively disagreed with, and survived. I'm not saying I'd have been happy/unshocked to see him advocate Trump/Pence, but I can't say that I'd have raegquit over it.

That's my take. Thank you for listenng.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

radidoo200 wrote:
Yakk wrote:Calling the first woman president, a 40-year vetaran of law and politics, who has been under a slime attack by the GOP and authoritarian wannabees for her entire career, "lesser" than the orange oilslick The Donald in any sense is ridiculous.
Let's be clear, this time, the lesser is a lot lesser than usual (the disparity is immense), but I'm just saddened that someone with this much weekly publicity used it for a boring endorsement. He could have pushed for real change. Killing the electoral college, killing the ridiculous notion that there are only two candidates.
This is a FPTP system. In each FPTP race, each significant candidate tends to hurt the chances that candidates "close" to them are elected. If you have 3 significant candidates, the one least like the other two has a huge, huge, huge advantage.

So at the presidental level, we get a two-party system. Adding a 3rd party "near" either mainstream party causes the nearby mainstream and 3rd party to act as mutual spoilers.

This isn't a fundamental tenant of politics, but rather an artifact of FPTP.

In more local elections this doesn't have to be the case. When states politics don't align with national politics, parties that are "closer" to each other can form the two viable front runners. This sometimes happens, with a R-D-I race, where one of the mainstream parties has tiny support.

A serious third party attempt in the USA should consist of finding states where one of the two parties dominates, then start a run at getting state-level and congress-level and even federal senate seats. You probably even want to start with city/county-council level.

That kind of geographically restricted third party has a large history of success in FPTP parlaimentary democracies, which the US is a close enough approximation to. And once you have your geographically restricted party, you start looking legitimate. Your policies get implemented in your geographical region, you get bargaining chips at the national level, etc.

Another way is to take over one of the main parties "from the inside". You can see this with Tea Party/Trump/Neocon Republicans, or even Bernie's attempt in this cycle's Primary.

Both of the national third party candidates are a joke this cycle, and the quality of their candidates reflects that. One panders to chem trails and anti-vaxxers and the like, the other seems completely clueless when not spewing empty rhetoric. The most likely 3rd party candidate to win the presidency is egg mcmuffin, by winning Utah, having a hung electoral college, and somehow pulling off being picked by Congress.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... residency/
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Weeks » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:22 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:stuff about third parties
See also this post by LaserGuy and subsequent posts

LaserGuy wrote:[...]The focus on the Presidency is basically a losing strategy. The system is rigged against third parties in ways that make it very hard to even get a foothold [...]
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:26 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.


That's actually a pretty vague statement considering...


... that yawningdog has not made it clear whether "unindicted" in this case is meant to mean "someone who has never been formally charged with any serious crime" or "someone who has never been formally charged with any crime."

Either way, we can presume that yawningdog would also be made rather unhappy by the endorsement of Malala Yousufzai implicit in Jon Stewart's opening to The Daily Show after the Charleston shooting.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DwayneSa and 100 guests