You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:35:39 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Don't vote!  (Read 6923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #150 on: April 14, 2014, 01:52:02 PM »
So, who in the past 30-40 years hasn't been?

Plenty of candidates that you won't see heavily interviewed on CNN, Fox, CBS, etc.  The key to change is for voters to be exposed to independent, alternative media, and educating the masses on the realities of the candidates they consider their "only" choices.

For what it's worth, I haven't voted for a 'mainstream' candidate in either of the last two elections.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 01:56:46 PM by Valthazar »

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #151 on: April 14, 2014, 02:33:03 PM »
Yet the election would not be rigged unless the voluntary choice to not vote were removed and replaced with coercion to keep voters from the polls.  There is nothing keeping people from voting except their own decision to do so.  I don't see the validity in your position.

Say Congress is made up of 10 seats and instead of the current batch of political parties there is the Pink Party and the Yellow Party.
Each seat only has 100 voters in it and by some fluke there is a 50\50 split of Pink and Yellow Party supports in each seat.
As everyone is so civic minded there is 100% turn out in all elections, so each election is a tie and has to be decided by the toss of coin.
Most of the time that's been fine as it's ended up with a tie in Congress, which means Congress has been prevented from interfering too much in peoples lives so everyone is happy.
The one time the Pink Party get a 6-4 majority in Congress and change the boundaries just a tiny bit.
In 9 of the districts now have a 51\49 split in Pink\Yellow voters and the last district is now 41\59 Pink\Yellow.
Everyone is still civic minded and keeps turning out to vote but they just can't understand how the Pink Party keeps getting a 9-1 majority in Congress in every election.
There is no coercion, but also there is no choice just an illusion of choice.
If the Yellow Party supporters finally see through the illusion what are there choices?
1 - Keep doing their civic duty and keep voting. The rules of game have been changed so that the Yellow Party can never have enough influence to change the rules to something fairer, so keeping on voting like they always have is just an act of madness from the Yellow Party supporters.
2- Convince people in the Pink Party to switch sides. Only problem there is they vote Pink Party for a reason, they like what they stand for and when the Pink Party has been in power they've rewarded their loyal supporters, so why would a Pink Party supporter do something as stupid as voting for a party they don't really like and lose all the perks in the process? Also if the Pink Party learns of these defectors, they'll just redraw the boundaries again so they still win 9 seats.

So if continued voting isn't going to change anything and persuasion doesn't really work, what options are left open to the Yellow Party?

Offline MikeandIke

  • Don't read anything underneath here.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Location: West Coast!
  • Gender: Male
  • What did I tell you!? Now you need to get spanked.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #152 on: April 14, 2014, 07:35:04 PM »

MikeandIke,
Look at the Crimean referendum, those who weren't ethnically Russian didn't vote for three reasons; voter intimidation, a rigged election and an unwillingness to give the vote even a fig leaf of legitimacy. If all the non-ethic Russians had voted it would have been used by Putin & co as proof of a fair vote. If an election is rigged then the only rational action is not to vote, but like I said before people are rarely rational despite most elections in the US being rigged.


So you are comparing an ethnic vote in a second world country to the United States. A country that hasn't been around in its current form for fifty years, to the longest running single democracy in the world. I think that's a stretch of the wildest sorts, but ok.

Voter Intimidation: The US has laws that have been on the books for decades making voter intimidation illegal. If you've ever noticed when/if you went to vote, groups are not allowed to even put up fliers near voting booths (I believe the current distance is 100 yards, but that's off the top of my head from memory of the last time I voted a month ago) Furthermore, the US has an institutional system set up to prevent it. We have police and the government itself. We also have the power of the press and right to assemble, which can be powerful motivational tools to spur debate and change.

Rigged Elections: The US has been, and is still, considered one of the most free countries in the word. (Freedom House's Ranking of the US is 'FREE', vs Ukraine's which is "PARTLY FREE' for starters). If you are charging that the actual elections, year after year, are rigged, then I would insist on proof. Proof using international criteria such as ballot box stuffing, multiple voted per person, etc. I won't say it doesn't happen at all, but the vast majority of elections are free and fair, and have been considered as such for many years. Otherwise it's an absurd accusation to generalize like that.

Unwillingness to give legitimacy: So, I'll ask you, who voted? Because I have tons of reports saying that Russian citizens voted in the election. Or that Crimean citizens were given Russian passports in order for them to claim Russian citizenship. How can you honestly call that legitimate in the first place when other citizens are taking place in a sovereign state's elections? When one country actively participates in another country's elections, how is that legitimate?

You want to compare that to the US? That'd be as if New Mexico sudden voted to secede from the Union tomorrow, claiming to be part of Mexico. And Mexican citizens came across to vote. Who would call that legitimate!?

The US has actual procedures set up to handle such things. For starters, we have a strong national court where grievances can be brought. And, in Texas v. White, SCOTUS struck down unilateral secession. We have a press that is able to move and print freely. We have, the possibility, of an informed electorate. We have freedom of travel. And, a strong central government made up of a legislator and executive branches. These things have grown over two hundred years into what they are now.

Ukraine has hardly any of those.

Democracy is an institution. It doesn't just happen overnight. Britain's government has been around for hundreds of years and they still have challenges (Though not in its current form). France is on it's fifth constitution and they have trouble. S. Korea went from a dictatorship to a free country and they still are wrestling with large issues. But they've also made great strides in each one of those cases. I would love to be pointed to a case study where a country has chosen the route of non-participation and such changes have been made. How did the populace come up with those changes? Who implemented them?


Personally, I think campaign finance and gerrymandering are two of the biggest challenges to elections at the moment. But, I'm not convinced that by not voting, it will change things. In fact, I see it as a tacit approval of the status quo. So, if there is a candidate who supports my positions on changing those, or who has ideas I support to change them, why would I NOT vote for them? Convince me of that if you want to win me over.

I've always wished we had 100% voter turnout. I certainly don't like only a third of the population choosing the candidates, and a majority of that third deciding the winner. But what seems to be the opinion of some is to whittle the turnout down to nothing, in the vein hope that "It'll show them!" Which seem fatalistic and apathetic to me. It's like someone who thinks they deserve a good job, without actually doing any work. 

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #153 on: April 14, 2014, 07:57:48 PM »
So if continued voting isn't going to change anything and persuasion doesn't really work, what options are left open to the Yellow Party?

Isn't the solution to this to educate people on alternative 3rd party candidates who may represent their views more effectively?  Many countries in Europe are known for having several political parties, so it is very reasonable to conclude that a more educated citizenry could alter this political duopoly, as perpetuated by the mainstream media.

In my opinion, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans serve in the best interest of the average American, and that belief is reflected in my votes.

Offline MikeandIke

  • Don't read anything underneath here.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Location: West Coast!
  • Gender: Male
  • What did I tell you!? Now you need to get spanked.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #154 on: April 14, 2014, 08:04:11 PM »
1 - Keep doing their civic duty and keep voting. The rules of game have been changed so that the Yellow Party can never have enough influence to change the rules to something fairer, so keeping on voting like they always have is just an act of madness from the Yellow Party supporters.
2- Convince people in the Pink Party to switch sides. Only problem there is they vote Pink Party for a reason, they like what they stand for and when the Pink Party has been in power they've rewarded their loyal supporters, so why would a Pink Party supporter do something as stupid as voting for a party they don't really like and lose all the perks in the process? Also if the Pink Party learns of these defectors, they'll just redraw the boundaries again so they still win 9 seats.

So if continued voting isn't going to change anything and persuasion doesn't really work, what options are left open to the Yellow Party?

First off, if everyone were doing their civic duty, they'd be filling out the census every ten years.....and know what the census actually is!! Then, there'd be a much more accurate accounting of who is where for districts./rant

So, the Pink Party won? 6-4 in an election from the people. That means the people wanted that party more than the Yellow. That also assumes a changing of opinions.

I find serious fault in your reasoning on number two. The people liked what the party stood for, hence why they voted them in. But to assume a static opinion between elections is problematic since you've just demonstrated that the opinion(s) can change, otherwise we couldn't have had a break from the tie. So, by your own reasoning there's nothing to have that opinion change again.

So, now the word gets out of this gerrymandering and a new topic can be debated in the next election. Who is for it and who is against it? Do the people actually support this? Were there any legal cases brought to fight it? (By the way, partisan gerrymandering was found to be something SCOTUS could review, see Davis v Bandemer) If there was a case, what was the verdict? Any appeals? Oh....wait, these are things that come about over the time of an institution.

You seem to make a really glib case in my opinion. Drawing districts doesn't just happen every Tuesday at poker night. You can't just say, "Oh, we've lose Pink supporters, time to redraw the lines!" That's not even what gerrymandering is. It's usually to KEEP supporters you already have and make your seat MORE secure.

If the party learns that people have left, they can also change their party lines. Unless the Whig party is still around?..... There is historical precedent for that occurring all the time. Parties can change and adapt to better represent the people who vote for them. Just like people can change.

Offline MikeandIke

  • Don't read anything underneath here.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Location: West Coast!
  • Gender: Male
  • What did I tell you!? Now you need to get spanked.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #155 on: April 14, 2014, 08:05:59 PM »
Isn't the solution to this to educate people on alternative 3rd party candidates who may represent their views more effectively?  Many countries in Europe are known for having several political parties, so it is very reasonable to conclude that a more educated citizenry could alter this political duopoly, as perpetuated by the mainstream media.

In my opinion, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans serve in the best interest of the average American, and that belief is reflected in my votes.

+1. While I would say that the US is more suited for a two party system, making it harder for a third party to come about. It has happened in the recent past. I do think a more educated citizen is key to anything.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #156 on: April 14, 2014, 08:06:48 PM »
Say Congress is made up of 10 seats and instead of the current batch of political parties there is the Pink Party and the Yellow Party.
Each seat only has 100 voters in it and by some fluke there is a 50\50 split of Pink and Yellow Party supports in each seat.
As everyone is so civic minded there is 100% turn out in all elections, so each election is a tie and has to be decided by the toss of coin.
Most of the time that's been fine as it's ended up with a tie in Congress, which means Congress has been prevented from interfering too much in peoples lives so everyone is happy.
The one time the Pink Party get a 6-4 majority in Congress and change the boundaries just a tiny bit.
In 9 of the districts now have a 51\49 split in Pink\Yellow voters and the last district is now 41\59 Pink\Yellow.
Everyone is still civic minded and keeps turning out to vote but they just can't understand how the Pink Party keeps getting a 9-1 majority in Congress in every election.
There is no coercion, but also there is no choice just an illusion of choice.
If the Yellow Party supporters finally see through the illusion what are there choices?
1 - Keep doing their civic duty and keep voting. The rules of game have been changed so that the Yellow Party can never have enough influence to change the rules to something fairer, so keeping on voting like they always have is just an act of madness from the Yellow Party supporters.
2- Convince people in the Pink Party to switch sides. Only problem there is they vote Pink Party for a reason, they like what they stand for and when the Pink Party has been in power they've rewarded their loyal supporters, so why would a Pink Party supporter do something as stupid as voting for a party they don't really like and lose all the perks in the process? Also if the Pink Party learns of these defectors, they'll just redraw the boundaries again so they still win 9 seats.

So if continued voting isn't going to change anything and persuasion doesn't really work, what options are left open to the Yellow Party?

Isn't this the Ayn Rand approach?  Create a hypothetical situation in which your arguments are the logical ones and then say "Look, my arguments are the logical ones." 

The Yellow Party isn't real. Both Democrats and Republicans are both getting in.  Both Labour, Conservative and the Lib Dems are getting in. Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are getting in.  Nowhere has the situation you outline so what does it matter what the Yellow Party should do?

Offline MikeandIke

  • Don't read anything underneath here.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Location: West Coast!
  • Gender: Male
  • What did I tell you!? Now you need to get spanked.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #157 on: April 14, 2014, 08:18:45 PM »
Isn't this the Ayn Rand approach?  Create a hypothetical situation in which your arguments are the logical ones and then say "Look, my arguments are the logical ones." 

The Yellow Party isn't real. Both Democrats and Republicans are both getting in.  Both Labour, Conservative and the Lib Dems are getting in. Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are getting in.  Nowhere has the situation you outline so what does it matter what the Yellow Party should do?

Gaaah, I had forgotten about Fianna Fail. Thanks a bunch for bringing them up!!! That takes me back....Crap, now I'm on a political fix!!

EDIT: Oh, and found an interesting article about this topic. Still digesting it, but looks good.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/11/03-afghanistan-frankel
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 08:22:18 PM by MikeandIke »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #158 on: April 14, 2014, 10:28:05 PM »
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - T.R.

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #159 on: April 15, 2014, 03:03:04 AM »
Isn't the solution to this to educate people on alternative 3rd party candidates who may represent their views more effectively?  Many countries in Europe are known for having several political parties, so it is very reasonable to conclude that a more educated citizenry could alter this political duopoly, as perpetuated by the mainstream media.

In my opinion, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans serve in the best interest of the average American, and that belief is reflected in my votes.

So your solution is that effectively the Yellow Party should split into the Yellow Party and the Purple Party in the hope that all supporters of the Pink Party members will suddenly have an epiphany and become Purple Party supporters. Some how I don't see that working, as the new Purple Party has exactly the same electoral obstacles to overcome as the Yellow Party.

Isn't this the Ayn Rand approach?  Create a hypothetical situation in which your arguments are the logical ones and then say "Look, my arguments are the logical ones." 
No, when you have a very complex problem best thing to do is make a very simple model and work from there, and this is a very simple model.
Also as more than one person on this thread has suggested, if you don't play the game you can't complain. I see lots of complaining but very little playing or are you perhaps suggesting that if you see the game as being rigged you shouldn't play at all?

So, the Pink Party won? 6-4 in an election from the people. That means the people wanted that party more than the Yellow. That also assumes a changing of opinions.
Go back and read it again, every district had a 50\50 split in the vote. The winners were decided by a coin toss, the Pink Party got lucky on the number of coin tosses when they won there 6-4 majority.

I find serious fault in your reasoning on number two. The people liked what the party stood for, hence why they voted them in. But to assume a static opinion between elections is problematic since you've just demonstrated that the opinion(s) can change, otherwise we couldn't have had a break from the tie.
See above

So, now the word gets out of this gerrymandering and a new topic can be debated in the next election.
And how does that debate play out?
Yellow supporter  : We don't like the districts are arranged because we have no chance in 9 of the seats.
Pink supporter : I like when the Pink Party wins, so lets leave things exactly as they are.

Again it's trying to get Turkey's to vote for Christmas, why would any Pink Party supporter ever change their mind? The system is now set up to give them exactly what they want.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #160 on: April 15, 2014, 04:06:47 AM »
When the game is rigged against you, the only winning move you can make is not to play the game at all.

I'm sorry, but this does not apply to elections.

You can boycott a product because the producer needs your money. You can ruin a ball game by refusing to play because the game requires a certain number of players. An election however, does not require any more than one voter ( or some bare minimum). Pulling out will only strengthen the other voter's say. In the US we have a Electors who vote on behalf of the voters, so if you don't vote, they will happily make that decision for you.

Since this idea has been repeated more than once, here's how it works - using smaller numbers.

In a small world, 3 people vote to choose 1 of 2 candidates for president.
Each of the 3 voters have a 1/3rd vote or 33% say in who is chosen.
If Joe refuses to vote, then the remaining 2 voters will now have a 50% say in who is chosen.
If Joe and Beth refuse, then the remaining voter makes the decision on his own.

On the contrary, if Joe had instead encouraged two of his deadbeat friends to vote, then he would dis-empower the existing voters - reducing their say from 33% each to 1/5th each or 20%. Assuming that his like minded friends voted for the same candidate that he did, then you could say that his vote ( plus his friends votes ) now has about twice the kick that it did before (3/5ths or 60%).

What's to stop Joe and his two deadbeat friends from introducing a candidate who represents their views. If they do this, then they dis-empower candidate 1 and 2. Actually, in this case, since its 3 against 2, their candidate would win the election.


Quote
TaintedAndDelish,
Slavery might have been made illegal but the Voting Rights Act has been gutted, so free but with no voice that's real progress towards equality.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was gutted because it was no longer needed. I don't see how not having it in this day and age will negatively affect the election.

Quote from: mj2000
I've already pointed out earlier in this thread that the issue of social reform is one that's less of an issue for this movement. There is steady improvement in that area, mainly because older and more conservative people are simply dying out. It's the income inequality that's what is not being addressed.

I agree, income equality is a sort point right now. The wealthy are getting richer and more powerful at the expense of the rest of the world. Using the voting system though, you could in theory, elect a socialist. ( *cough*  Obama *cough* ) The question is, are there enough folks to support such a candidate? ( Given the last election, I would say so ) If not, then then the voting system correctly reflecting the will of the majority as it should.


Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #161 on: April 15, 2014, 04:45:56 AM »
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was gutted because it was no longer needed. I don't see how not having it in this day and age will negatively affect the election.
Lots of states allow early voting, and the Sunday before the elections usually coincides with Black churchgoers going to the polls. But some Republican states are looking to limit early voting to such an extent that it would stop the Black predominately Democratic voters from going to the polls early, while at the same retaining extended early voting rights for the military a block of votes that normally splits in favour of the Republican's (not counting the last two presidential elections). Voter ID laws are being pushed by Republican states, not because there is any significant level of in voter fraud but because minorities have a harder time meeting the requirements for any number of reasons, minorities that generally split for the Democrats. Republican's are trying to make it harder for Democrats to win by preventing groups that normal go Democrat from getting to the polls and they are using race as one of the ways to identify groups of likely Democratic voters.
Still don't think we need the VRA, also what is the logic behind "Hey, here's a system that's working perfectly well. Lets change it so that it doesn't work at all" ?

I agree, income equality is a sort point right now. The wealthy are getting richer and more powerful at the expense of the rest of the world. Using the voting system though, you could in theory, elect a socialist. ( *cough*  Obama *cough* ) The question is, are there enough folks to support such a candidate? ( Given the last election, I would say so )
President Obama is slightly left of centre in a country that is globally right of centre so the idea that President Obama is a genuine left winger is utterly preposterous. But if you really think President Obama is a socialist then go have a look at President Reagan's record, the hero of the conservative right had higher tax rates than under Obama. One of Reagan's economic adviser's even published an article stating that today Reagan wouldn't be allowed get into the Republican Party because his idea would be considered too left wing. So if you think Obama is a socialist then Reagan must have been a communist.

If not, then then the voting system correctly reflecting the will of the majority as it should.
2000 Presidential Election - share of popular vote:
Gore : 48.4%
Bush : 47.9%


Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #162 on: April 15, 2014, 04:57:36 AM »
Your model is inappropriate though. The issue is the one hundred per cent turnout. Elections don't have that and your argument only works because you've inserted it contra reality. Taking a more reasonable turnout of sixty six per cent the obvious action for the yellow party is to encourage people to vote.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #163 on: April 15, 2014, 05:01:08 AM »
Lots of states allow early voting, and the Sunday before the elections usually coincides with Black churchgoers going to the polls. But some Republican states are looking to limit early voting to such an extent that it would stop the Black predominately Democratic voters from going to the polls early, while at the same retaining extended early voting rights for the military a block of votes that normally splits in favour of the Republican's (not counting the last two presidential elections).

Ok, but how does this prevent black church goers from voting? They have the whole day to schedule some time...

Quote
2000 Presidential Election - share of popular vote:
Gore : 48.4%
Bush : 47.9%

Yes, that's an ugly consequence of the electoral college and personally, I think we could do much better given today's technology. In my statement which you quoted, my point was that if enough people do not support a candidate with a certain mindset, then they simply won't get the votes needed to pass.


Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #164 on: April 15, 2014, 05:50:01 AM »
Kythia,
the model is entirely appropriate. Your answer is not to play the game as it stands, but as people keep on saying you only have two choices:
1 - Play the game as it is, and in this case then try to change a broken system that doesn't want to fixed
2 - Don't play and don't complain

Actually I have no problem with your answer which boils down to "don't play the game and try to change the rules from the outside"

Tainted,
One of the reason that early voting at black churches was started was to get a block of voters who had been disenfranchised\underrepresented to vote, and guess what the level of participation by black voters. There is now a tradition of early voting in minority communties that doesn't exist in white communties, easy access to voting is being removed from demographics that favour Democrats. Compare that with postal voting, an activity undertaken predominately by white and older voters, voters who are more likely to vote Republican, a form of voting that is more susceptible to fraud than in person voting. So early and easy access for demographics that are more likely to vote Republican while making it more difficult for demographics that are more likely to vote Democrat. Who needs to change people's mind when you can just stop your opposition from voting?

And just to turn your question around on you, if early voting was removed from the military how does it prevent them from voting? They have the whole day to schedule time....

Yes, the military could be called up a moments notice because of some emergency so they can't know with 100% certainty that they will be in a position to cast their vote. However that same argument could be made for the police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, EMT's, dentists.... forget the military any government employee could find themselves in a situation where they are unable to vote because of an emergency. So based on their jobs why should they be denied early access to voting?

And Ronald Reagan, communist or not?  ;)

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #165 on: April 15, 2014, 06:36:48 AM »
Kythia,
the model is entirely appropriate. Your answer is not to play the game as it stands, but as people keep on saying you only have two choices:
1 - Play the game as it is, and in this case then try to change a broken system that doesn't want to fixed
2 - Don't play and don't complain

Actually I have no problem with your answer which boils down to "don't play the game and try to change the rules from the outside"

Simply saying "the model is entirely appropriate" isn't an answer.  I've levelled a specific criticism, showing that the model is appropriate requires showing that my criticism is invalid, not announcing that you're right.  Regardless....

You think that encouraging people to vote - something every major political party does - is not playing the game and changing the rules?  I think your definition is over broad there.  What do you think isn't doing that?

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #166 on: April 15, 2014, 08:27:10 AM »
I've levelled a specific criticism, showing that the model is appropriate requires showing that my criticism is invalid, not announcing that you're right.
I go back to the two points, people making the same that there are two 'rules' : "Play the game as it is" and "Don't play the game, don't complain"
You want to bring in something from outside of the model, so you have chosen not to play the game as is, but by the 'rules' lots of people want to enforce are that not playing by the specified rules isn't allowed. As you seem to be agreeing with the general those 'rules' then you should play by them.
But to answer the criticism.
Is the model simple? Yes
Is it simple for a reason? Yes, it's removed all extraneous detail. But you can't answer a simple question so you want to muddy the waters by bringing in details that are irrelevant. There is a version 2 of the model that is a little bit closer to reality, but if you can't get your head around version 1 then you'll have no chance with version 2.
You are not playing the game as is, but you are complaining a lot. But the 'rules' say your not allowed to do that.
You have three choices:
Accept the 'rules' and play the game
Accept the 'rules', don't play and don't complain
Realise that the 'rules' are complete garbage

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #167 on: April 15, 2014, 08:39:03 AM »
I go back to the two points, people making the same that there are two 'rules' : "Play the game as it is" and "Don't play the game, don't complain"
You want to bring in something from outside of the model, so you have chosen not to play the game as is, but by the 'rules' lots of people want to enforce are that not playing by the specified rules isn't allowed. As you seem to be agreeing with the general those 'rules' then you should play by them.

No.  No no no.  That only applies if your model is valid.  My charge - which you haven't answered, is that the model isn't valid.  In your model not voting is, arguably, a sane strategy.  In one with lower voter turnout then it becomes far weaker a strategy compared to "more voting" - the opposite of the premise of this thread.

As the real world has a voter turnout lower than 100% and as introducing that factor into your model changes the optimal behaviour then your model is invalid.  Bringing in stuff from outside isn't changing the rules, its saying "this model is useless as a topic of conversation.  Please make a better one".

You are not playing the game as is, but you are complaining a lot. But the 'rules' say your not allowed to do that.
You have three choices:
Accept the 'rules' and play the game
Accept the 'rules', don't play and don't complain
Realise that the 'rules' are complete garbage

Yes, they are garbage.  They are also rules that you've just made up.  Noone else agrees with them, no one else accepts them, no one else has even mentioned them.  What precisely is their relevance?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #168 on: April 15, 2014, 08:44:10 AM »
Incidentally, you seem to have overlooked this question.  I'll requite it for your convenience.

You think that encouraging people to vote - something every major political party does - is not playing the game and changing the rules?  I think your definition is over broad there.  What do you think isn't doing that?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #169 on: April 15, 2014, 09:11:44 AM »
The thing is, right now what most of us are seeing is

Step 1: Don't vote
Step 2: ?? ?? ?? ??
Step 3: Profit! Success!

It has been suggested that if people don't vote, and a candidate that no-one wants gets elected, that this will 'invalidate' the process in the eyes of - the world? - someone, at any rate.

Here's what's really going to happen:

People don't vote and an unpopular candidate gets elected.

People: Invalid election!
World: Why?
People: We don't want this guy!
World: Who did you want?
People: This other person!
World: Did you vote for that person?
People:  ... No.
World:  Were you prevented from voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... No.
World: Why didn't you vote for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ...
World:  What did you do instead of voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
World:  Thought so.  Come back when you have a real problem.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #170 on: April 15, 2014, 09:30:39 AM »
I vividly remember seeing a crude home-printed poster that got put up (on a bunch of electricity switchboard cabinets by the walls of houses in the centre of this town), the day after the general elections, this was in the late nineties. It stated in block letters

ELECTION IS OVER
 Results:

The Politicians won -
You lost
Now sleep tight
for the next four years!


It's a kind of edgy text, you can't really argue against it within the way it sets up the terms. Whatever guys you voted for, or even if you left a blank vote, you are deemed to have lost to the politicos.  ::)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 09:32:55 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #171 on: April 15, 2014, 09:58:46 AM »
I go back to the two points, people making the same that there are two 'rules' : "Play the game as it is" and "Don't play the game, don't complain"
You want to bring in something from outside of the model, so you have chosen not to play the game as is, but by the 'rules' lots of people want to enforce are that not playing by the specified rules isn't allowed. As you seem to be agreeing with the general those 'rules' then you should play by them.
But to answer the criticism.
Is the model simple? Yes
Is it simple for a reason? Yes, it's removed all extraneous detail. But you can't answer a simple question so you want to muddy the waters by bringing in details that are irrelevant. There is a version 2 of the model that is a little bit closer to reality, but if you can't get your head around version 1 then you'll have no chance with version 2.
You are not playing the game as is, but you are complaining a lot. But the 'rules' say your not allowed to do that.
You have three choices:
Accept the 'rules' and play the game
Accept the 'rules', don't play and don't complain
Realise that the 'rules' are complete garbage

 Those are the only rules to play with. There aren't any others. Either you play in the system, trying to change it from the inside (and this is possible via protests and such which can change public opinion, or just by getting your own people voted into office) or you don't, and if you don't, then you have no reason to complain since you refuse to play in the only system available.  If you refuse to play by the rules and try to enact change from the outside, then that's where you have problems.  You're showing a disdain for the rules and a willingness to break them because -you- find them objectionable.

Your example automatically assumes 100% voter turn out. This is never the case. Your model also doesn't take into consideration that the voters opinions can change. Perhaps the Pink party had a better message people liked? Perhaps the economy had a turn down, an economic slump, or the Yellow party had some members get caught in a scandal. There could be any number of reasons why the Pink party has the majority now, and if the Pink party has a 51/49 majority in 9 out of 10 districts, that suggests they -are- the majority there..... So unless things change, the Pink party does have an official majority.

The thing is, right now what most of us are seeing is

Step 1: Don't vote
Step 2: ?? ?? ?? ??
Step 3: Profit! Success!

It has been suggested that if people don't vote, and a candidate that no-one wants gets elected, that this will 'invalidate' the process in the eyes of - the world? - someone, at any rate.

Here's what's really going to happen:

People don't vote and an unpopular candidate gets elected.

People: Invalid election!
World: Why?
People: We don't want this guy!
World: Who did you want?
People: This other person!
World: Did you vote for that person?
People:  ... No.
World:  Were you prevented from voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... No.
World: Why didn't you vote for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ...
World:  What did you do instead of voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
World:  Thought so.  Come back when you have a real problem.

 Very well put.  To mia h. I'm sorry but that *points up at the above quote* is how you are coming across as to me at least.. Kind of whiny because you don't like the current system.  Elections to not have a necessary minimum level of voting required. All they need is a percentage of those who do vote.  If only 5% of the country votes (and any eligible voters can vote, but most chose not to because of laziness and apathy), well, that means that 5% is who determines who wins. You have no reason to complain about being disenfranchised or the election being illegitimate since you refused to participate. To make an election illegitimate you need to have things like voter intimidation, voter fraud, keeping people from being able to vote and things like that. Just not voting because you don't want to does not and will not make an election illegitimate.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #172 on: April 15, 2014, 10:00:28 AM »
The thing is, right now what most of us are seeing is

Step 1: Don't vote
Step 2: ?? ?? ?? ??
Step 3: Profit! Success!

It has been suggested that if people don't vote, and a candidate that no-one wants gets elected, that this will 'invalidate' the process in the eyes of - the world? - someone, at any rate.

Here's what's really going to happen:

People don't vote and an unpopular candidate gets elected.

People: Invalid election!
World: Why?
People: We don't want this guy!
World: Who did you want?
People: This other person!
World: Did you vote for that person?
People:  ... No.
World:  Were you prevented from voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... No.
World: Why didn't you vote for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ...
World:  What did you do instead of voting for that person?
People: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
World:  Thought so.  Come back when you have a real problem.

Yeah, you've summed it up pretty effectively. Thanks. :D

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #173 on: April 15, 2014, 10:19:01 AM »
No.  No no no.  That only applies if your model is valid.
No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. (See I can do it too, not sure what it proves but there you go.)
Just because you say something is invalid doesn't mean that is the case. You haven't proved any lack of validity all you've done and keep doing is complaining that you don't like the model because it doesn't suit you. You don't want to play don't complain.

Yes, they are garbage.  They are also rules that you've just made up.  Noone else agrees with them,
Yes they do.
no one else accepts them,
Yes they do
no one else has even mentioned them.
Yes they have.Go back and read the thread properly, it is what some people have been saying.
The model is there to demonstrate a very narrow but very important point, you are either unable or unwilling to see it
Odd that you didn't find the rules objectionable when they were first brought, but suddenly they become a problem when your smoke and mirrors act didn't work. Hmm strange that.

Incidentally, you seem to have overlooked this question.  I'll requite it for your convenience.
You've not bothered to answer my question, why should I answer yours?

Louise
"NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GETS IN" was a demo track for the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band in 1972, so the sentiment has been around for a while. Not sure if that makes the text less edgy or is just more evidence that there's very little new under the sun.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #174 on: April 15, 2014, 10:24:47 AM »
No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. No.  No. (See I can do it too, not sure what it proves but there you go.)
Just because you say something is invalid doesn't mean that is the case. You haven't proved any lack of validity all you've done and keep doing is complaining that you don't like the model because it doesn't suit you. You don't want to play don't complain.
Yes they do.Yes they doYes they have.Go back and read the thread properly, it is what some people have been saying.
The model is there to demonstrate a very narrow but very important point, you are either unable or unwilling to see it
Odd that you didn't find the rules objectionable when they were first brought, but suddenly they become a problem when your smoke and mirrors act didn't work. Hmm strange that.
You've not bothered to answer my question, why should I answer yours?

Louise
"NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GETS IN" was a demo track for the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band in 1972, so the sentiment has been around for a while. Not sure if that makes the text less edgy or is just more evidence that there's very little new under the sun.

 Let me make it simple then: What are you suggesting then to fix it? You've come in here with a complaint about the election process, but as far as I see, haven't suggested anything to actually fix it. How would you have it fixed?