1756: "I'm With Her"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

J%r
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:02 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby J%r » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:in the Netherlands there's always a village less than 20km away, but during an election nearly everyone can vote within 15 minutes of whatever they were doing (10,000 polling stations for 13,000,000 people) —at least, I've never seen a queue of more than 6 people in all the 2 elections I've joined.

I know in Belgium always had to stand in the longest queue (30 minutes+). There were several polling stations in the nearby high school that had short queues, but we are all assigned a polling station on the voting letter (voting is mandatory here).

Flumble wrote:*I'm still very wary of what constitues "green" and "renewable", since all those minerals and metals used in e.g. solar panels and batteries require a lot of heavy industry and possibly destruction of nature to gather and process. And I have no clue how we're doing on recycling that stuff. (and of course nuclear fission is not an option in rational and advanced Europe because of a single accident with an old plant in earthquake-ridden Japan)

Don't forget Chernobyl. Since they're not allowed to build new nuclear power plants they have to keep the old ones open longer, I've heard about countless nuclear incidents and shutdowns around here, one of them being sabotage.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:That's a rather vague, general statement lacking any particularity. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't think the Constitution allows us any effective way to stop it, (Commerce Clause, she's a real witch.) Or if he simply disagrees with all of the specific plans that have been proposed to deal with the problem, either because he thinks they won't work or because he thinks the costs are too high.

He is on record saying that "in the long run, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, so global warming is unavoidable".

Because in five billion years the Earth will be cooked, so what's the point in dealing with it now.

Don't try apologism if you don't know what your sacred cow actually said.



Not apologism. The person I was addressing made several statements that I felt were jumping to conclusions not justified by the particular facts he presented. (In the form of "He did not support this particular act of government intended to address this problem. Therefore, he does not care about this problem.") Not only is it irrational to jump to conclusions like that, it's also the kind of thinking that makes politics more hateful and contentious, because people automatically assume the worst. "He didn't vote to in favor of executing pedophiles, he must be pro-pedophile." "He didn't vote for the Violence Against Women Act, he must be a misogynist."

But of course, the sort of nuance and complexity needed to actually try to understand folks who disagree with you requires more effort and attention than most people are willing to exert. At least, I am assuming you weren't paying attention to the critical things I said about Johnson, which is why you would accuse me of considering him a "sacred cow." In the spirit of what I just said, I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you actually did read everything I said, but you decided to make a deliberate strawman argument anyway.

Also, the use of "sacred cow" as an insulting and derisive reference mocking the Hindu religion. It really demonstrates what cowards some people are, who would never use a term such as "n*gger rigged" (and would likely be the first to shame someone else for doing so) because there's a good chance a large minority group with a lot of political clout in this country would heap social scorn upon you (if not give you a sound thrashing.) But rather casually insulting an ethnic group with a small presence in our country and an even smaller amount of social and political influence? Sure, why not? After all, it's not about being respectful to other cultures and other peoples, so much as avoiding consequences for breaking certain social norms.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Old Bruce » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:17 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:...

Ok. Everyone who's mad about this comic, line up over there, and we'll issue you your money back in triplicate.


If I pretend about being mad can I get the money in Euros and Mexican Pesos? I have an extremely poorly thought out plan to short the GB Pound.

Also where is the "over there" place I need to line up at?

User avatar
Ayelis
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:01 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Ayelis » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:22 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.

drazen wrote:Voting third party opens up ballot access and funding for them


I'd promote a third party if and when they put someone into the third party worth voting for.
You CAN'T expect anyone to endorse the third party when the most popular third party candidates this cycle are be a smot-poker who doesn't know WHAT Aleppo is let alone where, and a conspiracy theorist who thinks nuclear power plants are weapons of mass destruction, WiFi is eating children's brains and that peer-reviewed research hasn't been done on GMOs, Pesticides, and Vaccines.
(And no, America, Trump is neither third party nor worth voting for.)

radidoo200 wrote:And instead you give us a boring endorsement for the usual lesser of two evils? Sad, sad, sad.


Randall is on record as saying "I want, for once, someone I can vote for not because I dislike the other candidate, but because I’m proud of mine."
This election, he gets to have both. Sit down and take an actual objective look at our former First Lady's accomplishments and her stance (and look up why she voted the way she did), and don't just listen to the 25 year long anti-hype machine.

I'm out.
--
Don't tase me bro!

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:How is it possible that the US —allegedly the best county in the world, always boasting that voting is not just a right but a duty (at least that's what I gathered from South Park), kind of developed at the very least— can't manage to make voting easy for every single citizen?

If voting were easy, we wouldn't have to shame people into doing it by framing it as a duty.

But to answer your question, it's mostly politics and demographics. We as a nation are very good at collecting and analyzing statistics. Therefore, everyone in power knows that if we make it easier for non-English speakers to vote, one party will benefit. If we create a pathway to restore voting rights to felons who have served their time, one party will benefit. If young people, people who can only vote well before or well after business hours, people who need to vote early on a weekend, people stationed overseas in the military, people in certain neighbors disconnected from public transportation, or people who don't own cars and therefore would have to out of their way to get a government issued photo ID, or any of a number of other groups vote, we can predict with reasonable certainty the kind of candidates they would favor. So every time someone proposes something to make voting potentially easier, the other party sees it as a calculated political move and resists.

Remember, this is the country where many people considered Get Out the Vote a partisan group--even if the message isn't partisan, young people skew liberal, so getting young people to vote is pro-Democrat in effect, even if not in intent. In fact, in a country where most people are quite okay with manipulating young people into not doing drugs, or drinking less, or not driving while buzzed, or avoiding premarital sex, or having safe premarital sex, or not using a phone while driving, or serving your country, or standing up to bullies, or any of a number of other supposedly pro-social behaviors, quite a few Americans get pretty darn riled up about the guys who try to encourage youth to fulfill one of the most important duties (or exercise one of the most important rights) of citizenship.

Also, through... let's just call it quirks of history... our voting system is weird as all hell to begin with, and despite being a fairly young country born out of tossing aside tradition in a huge way, we Americans are shockingly deferential to tradition when it comes to our institutions. We began with vote apportionment meant to appease states that considered themselves themselves "states" in the sovereign sense, who were more interested in making sure each state was fairly represented in Congress, rather than each person. We began without even really the pretense that the President was elected by the people--the Electoral College came about because a large contingent of the founding fathers thought Congress should elect the President based solely on their own judgment, and our current system is a weird compromise between a popular election and an election by Congress.
And don't get me started on the land-owning requirements, literacy tests, overtly discriminatory denial of voting rights, and the whole 3/5th of a person thing. Despite the fact that many of us don't really like how things were, we're strangely afraid to change them too quickly.

From what I've heard it's actually been the US that has been pushing back multilateral initiatives for the past decades. And now you're telling me the US has done some unilateral initiatives too... rather than going with/pushing forward the multilateral ones? What's wrong with you people? :shock:


It's part politics, part "American independence." No doubt, one reason part of the reason we didn't ratify Kyoto is because we have a major political party who denies climate change and tends to resist any sort of business regulation. But there's also a thread that runs through both parties where a lot of people don't like multi-lateral anything. Some people really don't like the U.N., or NATO, or the World Bank, or any of a number of other organizations or treaties where our country is surrendering some bit of its sovereignty on certain issues.

Also, many of our unilateral initiatives are highly flawed in the eyes of many, which probably dampened enthusiasm for the multilateral initiatives that have come up. Actually, one criticism I have of a lot of our environmental laws in general is that they have reporting and compliance requirements that are just onerous enough to be a burden on companies trying to comply in good faith--but the enforcement mechanisms are so weak that they do nothing to make deliberate violators unprofitable. So there are probably some people who believe that if we can't control companies here who save more money breaking the law than they lose paying the fines, there's no way we can force some guy in China to comply with an international treaty.

Also, some people are morons who get one cold winter and suddenly refuse to believe that global warming could possibly exist.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

Takigama wrote: IMHO

To put it simply, this comic fails in every important aspect which makes xkcd unique and interesting.


It's always struck me as funny how "IMHO" tends to preface a statement that isn't exactly humble in tone, much like "with all due respect" often precedes a statement that conveys no respect at all, let alone however much respect is allegedly "due."

Also, I'm not criticizing your tone, nor am I suggesting you need to be more humble. I certainly don't try to be, and I think that makes things more interesting. Just pointing out (what I think is, anyway) a funny quirk of how we use language.

User avatar
matt96
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:55 pm UTC
Location: A suburb of Boston

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby matt96 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
Takigama wrote: IMHO

To put it simply, this comic fails in every important aspect which makes xkcd unique and interesting.


It's always struck me as funny how "IMHO" tends to preface a statement that isn't exactly humble in tone, much like "with all due respect" often precedes a statement that conveys no respect at all, let alone however much respect is allegedly "due."

Also, I'm not criticizing your tone, nor am I suggesting you need to be more humble. I certainly don't try to be, and I think that makes things more interesting. Just pointing out (what I think is, anyway) a funny quirk of how we use language.

Some people take the H to be honest.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby keithl » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

Don't waste your vote!
Give it to the Republicans and Democrats to waste for you!

peregrine_crow
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby peregrine_crow » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
peregrine_crow wrote:...
As mentioned you give more niche ideas a bigger podium

Do you mean "bigger podium than in a two-party system"? Because I didn't mean/mention "a bigger podium than their proportional representation".
But yes, it is true that niche/extreme ideas get a larger podium than they proportionally have. Indeed, sometimes it's a bad thing, and sometimes it's a good thing. In any case they "can't possibly" get an absolute majority vote, so they'll have to compromise to join a coalition.

I meant "bigger podium than in a two-party system", but you are correct that it is probably also larger than they proportionally have. And yes, that absolutely has its benefits as well.
J%r wrote:
Flumble wrote:in the Netherlands there's always a village less than 20km away, but during an election nearly everyone can vote within 15 minutes of whatever they were doing (10,000 polling stations for 13,000,000 people) —at least, I've never seen a queue of more than 6 people in all the 2 elections I've joined.

I know in Belgium always had to stand in the longest queue (30 minutes+). There were several polling stations in the nearby high school that had short queues, but we are all assigned a polling station on the voting letter (voting is mandatory here).

I believe we have it set up such that you have to vote in the city that you live in, but you get to pick the polling station. It used to be that you could only vote in the nearest polling station to your house, but they changed it a few years back to allow people to vote closer to where they work. I've also never seen queues longer than a few people.
Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:(slippery slope argument)


I disagree. Slippery slope arguments are generally meaningless, in part because how they are used is largely predicated on an arbitrary decision regarding where the "slope" begins. For example, the slippery slope argument that asserts legitimizing homosexuality will inevitably lead to turtle sex implicitly asserts that legalizing interracial marriage was somehow not part of that "slope."

Fox News and MSNBC didn't start as polarized as they are. They got that way by driving away the people who disagree, which led them to becoming more polarized, which led to driving away more people. Once you start down that road, it is hard to go back.


That's not really true for Fox News, and not remotely true for MSNBC. Fox News started off a bit more balanced, but it didn't take a slight step towards a partisan position that that unintentionally got more and more extreme as the news and the audience engaged in some sort of involuntary feedback loop, as you imply. Rupert Murdoch saw that he could not only use the organization to promote his personal political views, but that doing so was actually quite profitable, and would give the news organization a level of prestige and success it had previously lacked. He didn't start down a road and find "it is hard to go back," because he never wanted to go back. Because the road is full of money.

As for MSNBC (the cable news network, not the website), its opinion programs were countering Fox News almost since the beginning. It wasn't really until the late 2000's that really ran with the idea of becoming the liberal Fox News in order to increase their success, but MSNBC had been taking sides for years before that.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:56 pm UTC

matt96 wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:
Takigama wrote: IMHO

To put it simply, this comic fails in every important aspect which makes xkcd unique and interesting.


It's always struck me as funny how "IMHO" tends to preface a statement that isn't exactly humble in tone, much like "with all due respect" often precedes a statement that conveys no respect at all, let alone however much respect is allegedly "due."

Also, I'm not criticizing your tone, nor am I suggesting you need to be more humble. I certainly don't try to be, and I think that makes things more interesting. Just pointing out (what I think is, anyway) a funny quirk of how we use language.

Some people take the H to be honest.


Oh, I never realized. TIL. (Today I learned)

drazen
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

the third party when the most popular third party candidates this cycle are be a smot-poker who doesn't know WHAT Aleppo is let alone where,


Yeah, check out the Google analytics on Aleppo. Virtually nobody talked about Aleppo specifically until the fake "gaffe" when a question of a Syrian city nobody had heard of came up, completely out of context, immediately after another topic. Asked by a plagiarist with an obvious agenda. And what they left out of the reports of this "gaffe" was a quite reasonable and coherent follow-up response to the refugee situation, once it was clear WTF Mike Barnicle was talking about.

If he'd been asked about Damascus (Syrian capital), Raqqa (de facto ISIS "capital"), or even Palmyra (where many ancient artifacts have been irretrievably lost), I'd call it a gaffe. But Aleppo? Virtually nobody referred to the refugee/humanitarian crisis as "Aleppo" until Mike Barnicle did. On the broader issue, Johnson was on point. IDGAF whether a president has Jeopardy!-level geography knowledge if the general principles are sound.

Johnson also is not smoking pot during the election. He took it for medical reasons when recovering from a broken leg, if I recall. I am certainly not going to begrudge him that. I've never touched the stuff, myself.

Gary Johnson is not a great campaigner, that much I'll readily concede. I think his problem is that he has a lot of information and ideas to share, but since he's not really down for sound-bite politics, he struggles to make a coherent case, and it comes off as kind of rambling. It's not that he doesn't understand things; it's that he often wants to share way more information than he possibly can in the format/time provided by American politics.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Vahir » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:06 pm UTC

drazen wrote:As for the electoral college, abolishing it is stupid. It just means that instead of four states, twenty cities will decide the election. The end result will be more polarization between urban and suburban/rural than ever before. A better solution would be for the country to just break up and be done with it already. The USA is basically a bad marriage, and 60 million people pushing around 50 million people based on a national poll is a stupid, evil system. When Hillary says "stronger together," my response is, "IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES." Too many people want diametrically opposed things for the USA to sustain itself. The idea that secession or breaking up the Republic is awful or pro-Confederate is a stupid, irrational, overly emotional reaction; it is the most rational decision since the sides hate each other anyway. Other countries do it all the damn time, and the world doesn't freaking end. Stop trying to make everyone get along, it's not going to happen. At best it'll be the corrupt crap we have now where the people get screwed in favor of the elite, and at worst (I'm projecting long-term) it'll be another Iraq or Syria. Or maybe just Russia, but that would still suck.

My way makes 110+ million people all happy, democracy, especially first-past-the-post democracy, makes 50+ million miserable.
....


Bring on the Jesusland!

Image

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yablo » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

There's already a thread for most of this here, but with a straight-up endorsement comic, I don't see how debate is avoidable here.

One thing I'd like to note is that Black Hat Guy seems to be endorsing Hillary. Not that I'm surprised.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:A comic about romance, sarcasm, math and language is exactly the place to talk about this election.
Thank you, Randall, for not staying silent. Thank you for defending me both by voting, and by encouraging and helping others to vote.
*applause*

.....

E_H wrote:... funding ISIS ...
... like everybody else who ever bought fuel from the Saudi Oil company ... unlike people who bought fuel from Chevron between '91 and '03, who were instead funding Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and gold toilet seat programs.

... displaced and disinherited by invaders ...
What, again? That already happened to the entire population of North America, in the second half of last millennium!
enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...




... which is kinda weird coming from someone who seems to be supporting Trump.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:But to answer your question, it's mostly politics and demographics. We as a nation are very good at collecting and analyzing statistics. Therefore, everyone in power knows that if we make it easier for non-English speakers to vote, one party will benefit. If we create a pathway to restore voting rights to felons who have served their time, one party will benefit. If young people, people who can only vote well before or well after business hours, people who need to vote early on a weekend, people stationed overseas in the military, people in certain neighbors disconnected from public transportation, or people who don't own cars and therefore would have to out of their way to get a government issued photo ID, or any of a number of other groups vote, we can predict with reasonable certainty the kind of candidates they would favor. So every time someone proposes something to make voting potentially easier, the other party sees it as a calculated political move and resists.

Thanks for the explanation.
I take it the state governments are also too much two-party systems to (have to) negotiate legislation that makes it easier to vote for everyone?
Actually, what voting systems do the individual states have? Are they all (county-based) FPTP like the general election?


peregrine_crow wrote:I meant "bigger podium than in a two-party system", but you are correct that it is probably also larger than they proportionally have. And yes, that absolutely has its benefits as well.

Ah, okay. (Wait a minute, I made the exact mistake you didn't make by my rambling on about "bigger podium than propotionally represented". :P )

peregrine_crow wrote:I believe we have it set up such that you have to vote in the city that you live in, but you get to pick the polling station. It used to be that you could only vote in the nearest polling station to your house, but they changed it a few years back to allow people to vote closer to where they work. I've also never seen queues longer than a few people.

To add to that: you can ask your municipality for a poll card that's valid in another municipality until 12:00 the day before an election, so you can vote if you're on holiday/working somewhere else in the Netherlands that day.
I hope this is the case in Belgium as well.

Netreker0 wrote:Also, I'm not criticizing your tone, nor am I suggesting you need to be more humble. I certainly don't try to be, and I think that makes things more interesting. Just pointing out (what I think is, anyway) a funny quirk of how we use language.

I know you mean well, but at some point there's no need to clarify you don't intend to offend someone. :wink:
If Takigama were to interpret your message in an offensive manner, they'd best voice it and you could clarify your intent in response. You've made your (respectable) tone clear in this thread so far.


[edit]County! Dammit, I meant county! Not country!
Last edited by Flumble on Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:48 pm UTC

Murderbot wrote:
Reka wrote:For those outside the US who have no idea what to make of this, (1) be very, very thankful...

No thanks.

I keep seeing people seemingly misinterpreting Reka here. At least, I read them as saying "Be thankful that you are outside the US and don't have to directly deal with the consequences of this shit".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Bring on the Jesusland!

Image

What about non-panhandle Florida? And shouldn't Alaska be included?
Sableagle wrote:
... displaced and disinherited by invaders ...
What, again? That already happened to the entire population of North America, in the second half of last millennium!
enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...

I kind of get the invaders not wanting to become the subjects of genocide, enslavement and banishment themselves though. It's easy to refuse leaving (most of) the occupied land and to refuse paying adequate reparations to the survivors but it's quite hard being consistent about that when you're the victim.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

drazen wrote:As for the electoral college, abolishing it is stupid. It just means that instead of four states, twenty cities will decide the election.



I understand that a winner take all head-count is an imperfect system at best for reflecting the will of the people. However, under the Electoral College, we effectively have a head count where each person's head counts for a different amount based on how small their state is and how divided their state is. Taking a system you yourself claim would be crappy, and making it more arbitrary and more capricious, only results in a system that is more crappy.

So twenty cities will decide the election? I have no problem with this. I don't care about cities, I don't care about states, or any other arbitrary divisions. I care about people. The reason those twenty cities--distributed through out different states, in different regions, each with different cultures, different ethnic break-downs, different economies--will allegedly decide the election is because those cities contain a majority of the population among them. Under the current system, if you're in a "safe" state, your vote can't change the election results. If you're in a swing state, your vote can.

Under a popular election, a single voter in rural Georgia and a single voter in New York City matter equally. Yes, you can engage in sophistry, and frame it as "the New Yorker matters more because he's part of a huge group of New Yorkers," but that framing is arbitrary. You can also argue that whites matter too much because they're the largest single ethnic voting block. Christians matter too much because they're the only general religious group to hold a majority in this country. If you're Catholic you can draw the line elsewhere and argue that Protestants are a religious group with too much power, disenfranchising Catholics.

You also ignore that cities aren't monolithic in their voting. If anything, the demographics show that in terms of race, religion, political affiliation, education level, and type of employment, there is far more diversity within a city than there is in a rural area--if nothing else, the city has several orders of magnitude more population. Yes, there is a risk of tribalism. Yes, there is a risk that someone in the big city can influence many more voters than someone in a small town, simply by framing himself as "one of you guys." But here's the thing... all that already happens under the Electoral College system. The only difference is that in reality, things are even more distorted because some cities matter more than others, and some rural areas matter more than some cities.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...

The American Civil War was not a war over who would be in charge of the country. The presidency of the United States of America continued peacefully changing hands from before the war to afterward. It's just that in the meantime, some states decided they didn't want to be part of the United States of America anymore, but to become a new Confederate States of America instead -- without deposing the POTUS or anything like that in the process. The USA of course disagreed and the CSA was eventually rolled back into the USA. You could argue that maybe the power over the once-CSA states was not peacefully transferred during that period, but the power over the United States as a whole has remained peacefully-transferred the whole time; nobody has ever said "Hey! You're not really the president! I'm the president!" and then literally fought like with guns about it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby omgryebread » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:03 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:I take it the state governments are also too much two-party systems to (have to) negotiate legislation that makes it easier to vote for everyone?
Actually, what voting systems do the individual states have? Are they all (country-based) FPTP like the general election?
3 states have a two-round voting system. This is really just opening their primary so that all candidates are running against all other candidates, and then the top two run in the general election. This doesn't do anything to help third parties, instead usually just helping the state's dominant party, because you can often see two people from the same party running against each other in the general.


Netreker0 wrote:Not apologism. The person I was addressing made several statements that I felt were jumping to conclusions not justified by the particular facts he presented. (In the form of "He did not support this particular act of government intended to address this problem. Therefore, he does not care about this problem.") Not only is it irrational to jump to conclusions like that, it's also the kind of thinking that makes politics more hateful and contentious, because people automatically assume the worst. "He didn't vote to in favor of executing pedophiles, he must be pro-pedophile." "He didn't vote for the Violence Against Women Act, he must be a misogynist."
In order to believe I'm jumping to conclusions, you have to not only twist my words, but ignore Johnson's own statements on positions. Gary Johnson doesn't just support Citizens United because of constitutional reasons, he has said that unlimited donations are a good thing!
My biggest contributor during the last two campaigns gave me over $150,000. Not once since I've been elected has he been on the phone to tell me anything about what I should do. Is that not better than 150 people giving me a limit of $1000? Of those 150, there's a good chance that 50 are going to be on the phone trying to tell me what to do.
Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001



EDIT: For anyone thinking the Electoral College helps preserve the interest of smaller states, turn on the news today. They are talking about Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Not at all smaller states. That's because large states matter more in an Electoral College. The power of a large state to influence the election scales up faster than the voting power of individuals scales down, so without considering typical voting patterns, California voters are the most influential in the country. If you do consider those patterns, it's probably Florida or Ohio.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

J%r
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:02 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby J%r » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:15 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:To add to that: you can ask your municipality for a poll card that's valid in another municipality until 12:00 the day before an election, so you can vote if you're on holiday/working somewhere else in the Netherlands that day.
I hope this is the case in Belgium as well.

Actually since the elections are always on Sunday in Belgium, you can't change where to vote. You can get permission to proxy vote, if you're a student you get permission from the headmaster, if you're on holiday you need permission from the mayor. Or you get a free train ride to your city, and back from where you came (as long as you can produce a stamped election invitation).

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Can see what Trump is but can't see what Hillary is? Hillary is the one person other than Trump with a chance greater than 0.1% of being the next PotUS. Given the choice of a one-mile wade through a swamp with occasional bramble-covered mini-islands, a one-mile wade through a swamp full of water moccasins, alligators and unexploded cluster-bomb sub-munitions or a one-mile tightrope walk over that latter swamp in a thunderstorm, we'd accept a few bramble scratches.

Vague and comedic threat to California: run along the San Andreas faultline with a Stanley knife, then come back with a crowbar.

Takigama wrote:Just something to consider though; http://xkcd.com/556/ (2009) vs http://xkcd.com/1732/ (2016)

Image

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:
azule wrote:(long quote removed)


I didn't completely follow that stream-of-consciousness po...
I didn't bother reading past that point.

peregrine_crow wrote:we're having our own problems with idiots of the "build a wall" variety here in the Netherlands
I thought most of your dry land was created by building walls.

keithl wrote:Don't waste your vote!
Give it to the Republicans and Democrats to waste for you!

I got a glossy (landfill, not recyclable) election flappy last year that said: "Don't let the other parties tell you how to vote. Vote Labour!"

I'm not sure I want a candidate who doesn't think I can spot irony.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Thanks for the explanation.
I take it the state governments are also too much two-party systems to (have to) negotiate legislation that makes it easier to vote for everyone?
Actually, what voting systems do the individual states have? Are they all (country-based) FPTP like the general election?


So I had to google FPTP, and for some reason, I really like it. It's a really fun way to describe elections. Yes, I think our basic voting system if FPTP in all states, for local and federal elections.

Anyway, everything I posted earlier, I was thinking of states specifically, although some laws happen on the federal level that impact voting right and voting procedures. It's as you say, everything to do with voting either has to be negotiated between parties, or pushed through in years where one party has a strong majority. Because of our loose federal system, states have pretty wide latitude to decide how to run their elections and structure their state governments. There are Constitutional rules imposed on all states--no barring people from voting by race and gender, no poll taxes or literacy tests meant to disenfranchise some groups more than others, and I think requirements for allowing active military to vote absentee--but states vary widely in whether they do early voting, how they do absentee ballots, how they handle voter registration, and other procedural decisions.

Which brings up another fun political aspect of our political system: gerrymandering. Apportionment of (federal) Congressmen is based on population. We separate people into districts--defined by geographical boundaries but created to form groups of roughly equal population. Each district votes in a winner take all, FPTP election to seat a representative. Every time our census shows a substantial change in population distribution, there's a fight about how to redraw the districts--because it's population based, you can't simply draw lines based on counties or cities, and if you look at a map of districts they get pretty weird sometimes. Beyond the obvious latitude in how districts are drawn, I think states also have a lot of freedom to decide how they want to count population for the sake of breaking things down--I don't think there's nationwide consistency in whether minors, transient populations like students who legally reside in other states, illegal immigrants, and other people who can't vote are counted when creating districts. Since it's such a battle, I believe most if not all states seat their state legislatures relying on the same district maps, but I don't know for certain.

For state executive offices and to determine what the state's official popular vote on national elections (other than those based on districts), votes are collected by district, and the news treats them as if winning a district has some symbolic meaning, but otherwise it's a straight up state-wide headcount, where votes count equally no matter the district. For the Presidency, it gets weird because the popular vote is only the first step. I think most states give all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter the margin. I believe some still try to apportion their votes to reflect the popular vote as closely as possible. In theory, most states allow their electors to basically tell their voters that they're idiots and vote however they want, but this doesn't really happen.

This probably looks needlessly complicated and ridiculous from the outside. Don't worry, it looks that way from inside as well.

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Image

When you cross the streams get to the point that the extinction line crosses the populations line, that'd be bad for us, right? ;)

(Yes, I know it's different scales and different kinds of counting anyway... I just thought it funny anyway... :P)

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:In order to believe I'm jumping to conclusions, you have to not only twist my words, but ignore Johnson's own statements on positions. Gary Johnson doesn't just support Citizens United because of constitutional reasons, he has said that unlimited donations are a good thing!
My biggest contributor during the last two campaigns gave me over $150,000. Not once since I've been elected has he been on the phone to tell me anything about what I should do. Is that not better than 150 people giving me a limit of $1000? Of those 150, there's a good chance that 50 are going to be on the phone trying to tell me what to do.
Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001



Once again, you're moving the goal posts. The original statement I disagreed with was "Johnson doesn't think money in elections is a problem. As I stated the last time this exact same interview was brought up, and as you yourself just admit, in this interview Johnson doesn't say that he thinks money in elections isn't a problem. In fact he articulates specific circumstances where he envisions money in elections being a problem--when there are more (smaller dollar amount) donors.

As I stated before, I disagree with both his conclusion and the reasoning he used to reach that conclusion. Johnson seems to believe that all political meddling is created equal, and the more donors he needs to raise the same amount of money, then the higher the probability of getting a high number of equally meddlesome donors. I don't accept that assumption--I believe that a large number of small donors actually dilute their influence beyond usefulness. His single $150k contributor may not have tried to influence him, but if he ever did, he would have far more leverage than any single $1000 donor threatening to withdraw his support.

Which--again, as I've stated numerous times before--is why I'm voting for the libertarian philosophy more so than Johnson or even the Libertarian Party. If Johnson sincerely thinks that big money donor has less pull than numerous small-money donors, then that lack of awareness would only make him more susceptible to influence and manipulation.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...

The American Civil War was not a war over who would be in charge of the country. The presidency of the United States of America continued peacefully changing hands from before the war to afterward. It's just that in the meantime, some states decided they didn't want to be part of the United States of America anymore, but to become a new Confederate States of America instead -- without deposing the POTUS or anything like that in the process. The USA of course disagreed and the CSA was eventually rolled back into the USA. You could argue that maybe the power over the once-CSA states was not peacefully transferred during that period, but the power over the United States as a whole has remained peacefully-transferred the whole time; nobody has ever said "Hey! You're not really the president! I'm the president!" and then literally fought like with guns about it.


I've always thought the American Civil War was a bit of a misnomer. Yes, huge numbers of the population were involved and it was just as bloody and horrible as any "real" civil war, and I don't want to diminish that, but like you say, nobody was fighting for a country or a throne. It was more like the American War of Independence. Nobody in Great Britain refers to that as a civil war, and even if it had failed like the CSA's attempt to secede, it probably would have been characterized as a failed rebellion, and not a civil war.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:(Yes, I know it's different scales and different kinds of counting anyway... I just thought it funny anyway... :P)

I really don't understand why the right axis goes to 8 thousand, the axis is simply labelled "population numbers" and only the legend tells it's counted in millions. :?
And to top it off, one of the axes has thousands separators while the other doesn't and it has a marble background! (luckily this data also shows up in more sensible charts)

Netreker0 wrote:It's as you say, everything to do with voting either has to be negotiated between parties, or pushed through in years where one party has a strong majority. Because of our loose federal system, states have pretty wide latitude to decide how to run their elections and structure their state governments. There are Constitutional rules imposed on all states--no barring people from voting by race and gender, no poll taxes or literacy tests meant to disenfranchise some groups more than others, and I think requirements for allowing active military to vote absentee--but states vary widely in whether they do early voting, how they do absentee ballots, how they handle voter registration, and other procedural decisions.

Ah, so you do have states without one party having an absolute majority, despite having FPTP virtually everywhere? Interesting, CGP Grey has taught me that that voting system always ends up with 2 parties. (Or do voting laws require a special 60% or 2/3rd or 80% majority to pass?)

Are there any promising initiatives to switch to a not-retarded different voting system for state elections?

xtifr
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xtifr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

smittythepirate wrote:
zjxs wrote:
romance,
sarcasm, math, and language


Choosing the next President will have a substantial effect on all of those things, and will also affect science, rationality, wit, and kindness.


The next President will have no effect on this, the same as every President previously.


This is nonsense. The fact that the president can't wave a magical wand and fix everything that's wrong in the world doesn't mean that politicians in general, and world leaders in particular, can't have large effects on things.

Not-so-random example is climate change. People of a scientific bent (a demographic which overlaps heavily with xkcd fans) know that this is a critical issue in the moderately short term. And Hillary is the only candidate who seems to support realistic solutions. (Stein says she is, but her fanatical opposition to carbon-neutral nuclear power is worrisome. Johnson thinks the free market should sort it out, even though the free market is what got us here. And Trump simply claims it's all a Chinese plot.)

In fact, on the topic of science in general, it may be instructive to look at the results of the Scientific American survey of the four major candidates. This may go a long way to explaining why Randall chose to endorse Hillary. (It certainly helped solidify my thinking on the topic. Also, it's my source for the information on the candidates in the previous paragraph.)

Old Bruce wrote:
xtifr wrote:...

Ok. Everyone who's mad about this comic, line up over there, and we'll issue you your money back in triplicate.


If I pretend about being mad can I get the money in Euros and Mexican Pesos? I have an extremely poorly thought out plan to short the GB Pound.

Also where is the "over there" place I need to line up at?


Heck, you can get it in Bitcoin or gold & jewels if you like. And just for you, because you asked so nicely, we'll re-double your refund, making it a full 6x!

Line up over there! Where I'm pointing. Sheesh! :lol:
Last edited by xtifr on Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Are there any promising initiatives to switch to a not-retarded different voting system for state elections?


Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 2016

http://www.rcvmaine.com/

It's a start.

xtifr
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xtifr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

bondsbw wrote:
Flumble wrote:Are there any promising initiatives to switch to a not-retarded different voting system for state elections?


Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 2016

http://www.rcvmaine.com/

It's a start.

Ranked-Choice/Instant-Runoff is already in place for several cities in California. I just moved to a different city recently, and I had to learn way more about our mayoral candidates than i might have wanted, in order to decide who should get my third-place vote. :)

(This is the downside of IRV, but I think it's well worth it, and I hope this spreads to the state level before long.)
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:(Yes, I know it's different scales and different kinds of counting anyway... I just thought it funny anyway... :P)

I really don't understand why the right axis goes to 8 thousand, the axis is simply labelled "population numbers" and only the legend tells it's counted in millions. :?

Probably because "8,000 million" is less ambiguous than "8 billion" (short measure) or "8 milliard" (long measure) for the same value. Doesn't help those people for whom a comma is a decimal point (more likely to use the local version of milliard, and/or at least not accept that it's a "billion" until it's a 1x106 million), but I'll admit to forgetting that myself, sometimes.

8x109 would be pretty much unambiguous, but we wouldn't want to overcomplicate things for anybody, would we? ;)

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Old Bruce » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:....
Old Bruce wrote:
xtifr wrote:...

Ok. Everyone who's mad about this comic, line up over there, and we'll issue you your money back in triplicate.


If I pretend about being mad can I get the money in Euros and Mexican Pesos? I have an extremely poorly thought out plan to short the GB Pound.

Also where is the "over there" place I need to line up at?


Heck, you can get it in Bitcoin or gold & jewels if you like. And just for you, because you asked so nicely, we'll re-double your refund, making it a full 6x!

Line up over there! Where I'm pointing. Sheesh! :lol:


Great, thank you. Now for the waiting (the hardest part) I sure hope I have enough patience, of course if I have enough patience I get to be a pretend doctor as well. Win win for me.

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:51 pm UTC

Ayelis wrote:
cupric wrote:I wouldn't judge anybody for their vote.
[...]
Consider yourself dumped, Randall.


Well that escalated quickly.


Yes, so much so that I felt I had to go back and attempt to de-escalate. See my update to that post.

What I meant, but expressed very poorly because I was angry, is this:

* I don't judge anyone for their vote (at least not with these candidates).
* Randall is publicly judging those who intend to vote differently, or at least he is appearing to.
* I am calling him out on that as pointedly as I know how.

The problem, as I realized later, is that by walking away I would be indulging in the same Othering that I'm accusing Randall of. The fact that he did it first doesn't excuse me, especially since I doubt that he meant to excommunicate any of his readers.

(And if it later turns out that he did mean to denigrate those who disagree, my best revenge will be to bitch about it endlessly in the forums.)

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

cupric wrote:* Randall is publicly judging those who intend to vote differently, or at least he is appearing to.

I don't feel like there's any particular reason why "I'm with her" should inherently imply judgment on those who aren't.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby omgryebread » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:06 pm UTC

I think people ignore that a major reason for opposing a switch in our voting system is that FPTP isn't as terrible as its made out to be. Or rather, the other solutions aren't so amazing.

Let's say we have 100 voters. Alice is running as the Democrat, Bob is a Green party candidate, and Claire is a Republican.

29 voters support Alice, then Bob, then Claire.
31 voters support Bob, then Alice, then Claire.
40 voters support Claire, then Alice, then Bob.

First round of IRV, Alice is eliminated. In the second round, her votes go to Bob and he wins. Sounds okay, right? Exactly what we want! But wait a minute. If the election were Alice vs. Bob, she would win. If the election were Alice vs. Claire, she'd win. So we get a situation where despite the fact that more voters prefer Alice to either other candidate, she loses the election. If Claire voters really hate Bob, they should strategically vote for Alice.

But there's more! Let's imagine that instead, we get:
29 voters support Alice, Bob, Claire.
31 support Bob, Alice, Claire.
12 support Bob, Claire, Alice.
28 support support Claire, Alice, Bob.

In this case, Claire is eliminated in the first round, and Alice wins the second. All I did was take votes away from Claire and give them to Bob, yet that actually made him lose.

A situation like this happened in Burlington, Vermont in 2009, which led to the city actually repealing IRV.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Quantized » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

cupric wrote:
Ayelis wrote:
cupric wrote:I wouldn't judge anybody for their vote.
[...]
Consider yourself dumped, Randall.


Well that escalated quickly.


Yes, so much so that I felt I had to go back and attempt to de-escalate. See my update to that post.

What I meant, but expressed very poorly because I was angry, is this:

* I don't judge anyone for their vote (at least not with these candidates).
* Randall is publicly judging those who intend to vote differently, or at least he is appearing to.
* I am calling him out on that as pointedly as I know how.

The problem, as I realized later, is that by walking away I would be indulging in the same Othering that I'm accusing Randall of. The fact that he did it first doesn't excuse me, especially since I doubt that he meant to excommunicate any of his readers.

(And if it later turns out that he did mean to denigrate those who disagree, my best revenge will be to bitch about it endlessly in the forums.)


Just because Randall is voicing support for one person, does not mean he is saying "everyone who supports the other person is stupid" or anything else like that. It's a show of support, not an attack on those who don't support the same person. Just saying. I understand where you're coming from, but Randall never publicly voiced judgement on supporters of other candidates.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:17 pm UTC

cupric wrote:I don't judge anyone for their vote (at least not with these candidates).



I dunno, I'm totally OK with judging people who vote for Trump - they are either bigots, deluded, or idiots. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but given the choices this election? Yeah, I'm ok with the shitty status quo over the literal fascist.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I think people ignore that a major reason for opposing a switch in our voting system is that FPTP isn't as terrible as its made out to be. Or rather, the other solutions aren't so amazing.

Let's say we have 100 voters. Alice is running as the Democrat, Bob is a Green party candidate, and Claire is a Republican.

29 voters support Alice, then Bob, then Claire.
31 voters support Bob, then Alice, then Claire.
40 voters support Claire, then Alice, then Bob.

First round of IRV, Alice is eliminated. In the second round, her votes go to Bob and he wins. Sounds okay, right? Exactly what we want! But wait a minute. If the election were Alice vs. Bob, she would win. If the election were Alice vs. Claire, she'd win. So we get a situation where despite the fact that more voters prefer Alice to either other candidate, she loses the election. If Claire voters really hate Bob, they should strategically vote for Alice.

But there's more! Let's imagine that instead, we get:
29 voters support Alice, Bob, Claire.
31 support Bob, Alice, Claire.
12 support Bob, Claire, Alice.
28 support support Claire, Alice, Bob.

In this case, Claire is eliminated in the first round, and Alice wins the second. All I did was take votes away from Claire and give them to Bob, yet that actually made him lose.

Use condorcet. It can have ambiguities (when the votes result in something like stone paper scissors) but imo no voting system I know of is obviously superior in these situations. Though the drawback is that the calculations can get really complex with many candidates so you ca't really reproduce it at home.

peregrine_crow
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby peregrine_crow » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
peregrine_crow wrote:we're having our own problems with idiots of the "build a wall" variety here in the Netherlands
I thought most of your dry land was created by building walls.

I'll admit, I laughed :P

omgryebread wrote:I think people ignore that a major reason for opposing a switch in our voting system is that FPTP isn't as terrible as its made out to be. Or rather, the other solutions aren't so amazing.


Ok, yes, fair, no voting method is perfect. The point is that FPTP has more problems than the alternatives. In your first scenario FPTP selects Claire, who loses to both Alice and Bob if she was running against either of them individually (ie. she is a Condorcet loser in this scenario).

Your second scenario (giving people more votes causes them to lose the election) indeed does not happen under FPTP, but I suspect such scenarios are rare under real world circumstances (though I admit I have no data to back that up) and if you are very worried about something like this you can always switch to some Condorcet voting system like PeteP suggests.
Last edited by peregrine_crow on Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 41 guests