You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 04:31:44 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 6896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #175 on: April 15, 2014, 10:41:11 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.

No, that's certainly true.  But, equally, just because you say it is doesn't make it so.  I've raised an objection, you have failed to meet it.  Please meet it.

Quote
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.

Or, alternatively, that was the first time you'd mentioned the rules to me.  Your comments to me prior to that were:

Quote
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?

Quote
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"

Odd that...

Quote
You've not bothered to answer my question, why should I answer yours?

What question is that sorry?  I've quoted two of your comments to me above, no questions there.  Your third one is this:

Quote
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

Again, no questions there.  You're either confusing me with someone else or making things up.  Either way, hopefully you can now see that I've not failed to answer your question so, finally, you can answer mine.  Please.


Edit:
Actually, now I come to think, I'm out.  Many people are asking you to answer questions and give specifics and mine is by far the least important.  No point in me taking up space.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 10:50:08 AM by Kythia »

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #176 on: April 15, 2014, 11:02:21 AM »
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.

Some rules need to change because they are just plain wrong, and sometimes the only way to change rules is to break them. One of the points of the model is that sometimes things are so broken they cannot be changed from the inside. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi they found the rules objectionable but they also knew that working inside the system wasn't going to bring about change, or do you think that India should renounce it's independence and become a British colony again? And that South Africa should reinstate apartheid?

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.
Like other people, you are bringing something from outside the model\system\game but...

Those are the only rules to play with. There aren't any others. Either you play in the system ... or you don't, and if you don't, then you have no reason to complain.

So you've manage to invalidate your own objections. Two words for you to look up : ceteris paribus

Very well put.
Or completely missing the point, depends on how you see it.

Elections to not have a necessary minimum level of voting required.
Depends on the election, in some places there are outright legitimacy standards, in Germany the elections are run under AV but there is a minimum voting threshold before parties can gain any seats at all.

You have no reason to complain about being disenfranchised or the election being illegitimate since you refused to participate.
But what if the system is so broken that your participation or lack of it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome?

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.
I think you're wrong, if I can tell which party is going to win an election with 99.9% certainty not just before one vote has been cast but before one day of campaining has started before the candidates have been announced before any primary have taken place, would you call that a legitimate democratic election? Personally I think any election where I know (and don't just guess) the outcome before it happens must be rigged in some way or other. To make an election illegitimate, you don't have to stuff ballot papers into the box and you don't have to intimidate people.

Offline 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 #177 on: April 15, 2014, 11:20:42 AM »
Or completely missing the point, depends on how you see it.

Please explain.  Until you come up with some genuine answers instead of hedging around the issue, I am going to now assume that you are only carrying this on as a form of intellectual sand-pounding.

Offline mj2002Topic starter

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #178 on: April 15, 2014, 11:48:02 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.
You're seeing this because most of the people posting here have been blinded by their own misrepresentations. It's really easy to argue with other people if you only look at what people who are agreeing with you are saying about the other side's opinion. I'm getting tired of all these deliberate attempts to portray this issue as just "Don't vote, then everything will be fine." If you want to argue against yourself, feel free. This doesn't seem to be the place to do it though.

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #179 on: April 15, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »
Please explain.  Until you come up with some genuine answers instead of hedging around the issue, I am going to now assume that you are only carrying this on as a form of intellectual sand-pounding.
I acknowledge that there are other aspects, possibilites etc. But some people refuse to accept even the possibility outside of what I think is a very blinkered view, stuff any answers you can't even see the problem.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #180 on: April 15, 2014, 11:53:03 AM »
Some rules need to change because they are just plain wrong, and sometimes the only way to change rules is to break them. One of the points of the model is that sometimes things are so broken they cannot be changed from the inside. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi they found the rules objectionable but they also knew that working inside the system wasn't going to bring about change, or do you think that India should renounce it's independence and become a British colony again? And that South Africa should reinstate apartheid?

 And they changed the system from the inside by influencing politicians and such. Places like South Africa, decided, through it's own legislative process, to end apartheid. It wasn't forced on the nation from the outside, but the system itself made the change.


 
Quote
Like other people, you are bringing something from outside the model\system\game but...

 Public opinion isn't outside the system. It influences the politicians to change the system from the inside.

 
Quote
So you've manage to invalidate your own objections. Two words for you to look up : ceteris paribus

  I haven't invalidated anything. Either you play by the rules of the game or you don't. You're refusing to play by the rules and  are wanting to  change the system from the outside.

 
Quote
Or completely missing the point, depends on how you see it.

 I think she nails your point exactly. You have been advocating people to not vote as a form of protest, then complaining and calling those results invalid when you voluntarily give up the the issue by not voting. By not voting, you voluntarily let the other person win.


 
Quote
Depends on the election, in some places there are outright legitimacy standards, in Germany the elections are run under AV but there is a minimum voting threshold before parties can gain any seats at all.

 I cannot speak for any other nation, but I'm sure in the US, there are no minimum voting limits, just registered voters and those who actually vote. That's why I've been saying, if only 5% vote, then that 5% decides who wins and the 95% that didn't vote, has no reason to complain about it because they didn't vote. If you can participate, but don't, then you don't deserve a say in things.

 
Quote
But what if the system is so broken that your participation or lack of it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome?

 Then work to change the system from inside. You're giving up before you even start. Sheesh!

 
Quote
I think you're wrong, if I can tell which party is going to win an election with 99.9% certainty not just before one vote has been cast but before one day of campaining has started before the candidates have been announced before any primary have taken place, would you call that a legitimate democratic election? Personally I think any election where I know (and don't just guess) the outcome before it happens must be rigged in some way or other. To make an election illegitimate, you don't have to stuff ballot papers into the box and you don't have to intimidate people.

 If the vote is fair and  not rigged (voter intimidation, ballot box stuffing and such) and people just vote more for one person than the other, then the results would be valid. You're using circular logic in a faulty way here. 'any election where I know (and don't just guess) the outcome before it happens must be rigged in some way or other.' Maybe the voters actually prefer the one person over the other? Even consider that? That doesn't mean the results are illegitimate. and this: 'To make an election illegitimate, you don't have to stuff ballot papers into the box and you don't have to intimidate people.'  You're throwing out results you don't agree with because you don't like that. You're just finding ways to avoid acknowledging a valid election and saying 'I think it's not valid, so there'.   If that's not what you're saying, make it clearer because that is very much how you are appearing to me and some others here. 'I don't like the results so they MUST be invalid!'

Offline 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 #181 on: April 15, 2014, 11:54:16 AM »
I'm getting tired of all these deliberate attempts to portray this issue as just "Don't vote, then everything will be fine."

Then what is it?  WHAT is your alternative to voting?

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 #182 on: April 15, 2014, 12:22:54 PM »
There's a reason why all the 1%ers of the world are voting and lobbying.  Us 99%ers need to do the same.  My personal opinion is that the Democrat/Republican split is manufactured to have us average folk fight amongst ourselves, when in reality, a truly cohesive election campaign amongst us 99%ers is the only way to restore economic prosperity for the average American.

Offline mj2002Topic starter

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #183 on: April 15, 2014, 12:40:59 PM »
Then what is it?  WHAT is your alternative to voting?
I'm not against voting as such, but it doesn't work in the current system. You keep going on about the example where if you don't vote, the candidate you didn't want in gets voted in, because others do vote. This clearly demonstrates that you've not been reading our posts at all. Why is this? If you're going to argue, try to at least get an understanding of what the other is saying instead of making up your own fictional arguments and defeating them. This is extremely rude and makes it appear as if you're here for the sake of arguing.

(Concering the US mainly, but the UK to an extent as well) The point is, yes, someone will get elected that we don't like, because we don't like any of the candidates. People have voted for different candidates over and over and over, yet none of address these larger issues. If you would, please point me in the direction where politicians have made substantial progress in addressing climate change, income inequality and corporatism? Of course, there are no such examples because these issues remain unaddressed. You can keep voting for the same type of candidates over and over again, then each time expecting different results. You go ahead and do that, but I'm in favor of removing this political class entirely. They're not fit to address issues that are very pressing and thus should either be made to change their ways or removed altogether, because the current electoral system does not allow for people to enter this system and break the hegemony of the political class. First step, stop voting and boycott relevant elections. If that doesn't work, more radical steps are required.

There's a reason why all the 1%ers of the world are voting and lobbying.  Us 99%ers need to do the same.
When the average voter has just as much influence on the outcome as the billionaires, let me know. The system is rigged and your vote does not make a difference.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 12:43:38 PM by mj2002 »

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 #184 on: April 15, 2014, 12:44:55 PM »
(Concering the US mainly, but the UK to an extent as well) The point is, yes, someone will get elected that we don't like, because we don't like any of the candidates. People have voted for different candidates over and over and over, yet none of address these larger issues.

I think you are like me, in the sense that you are dissatisfied with both the Democrats and Republicans.  Don't feel that your only options are those who show up in the CNN or Fox presidential debates.  Do some independent research, and I'm sure you'll find grassroots candidates who espouse the views you agree with, and who have a track record of integrity at the state and local level.  This is what I meant by voter education.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #185 on: April 15, 2014, 01:06:17 PM »
I'm not against voting as such, but it doesn't work in the current system. You keep going on about the example where if you don't vote, the candidate you didn't want in gets voted in, because others do vote. This clearly demonstrates that you've not been reading our posts at all. Why is this? If you're going to argue, try to at least get an understanding of what the other is saying instead of making up your own fictional arguments and defeating them. This is extremely rude and makes it appear as if you're here for the sake of arguing.

(Concering the US mainly, but the UK to an extent as well) The point is, yes, someone will get elected that we don't like, because we don't like any of the candidates. People have voted for different candidates over and over and over, yet none of address these larger issues. If you would, please point me in the direction where politicians have made substantial progress in addressing climate change, income inequality and corporatism? Of course, there are no such examples because these issues remain unaddressed. You can keep voting for the same type of candidates over and over again, then each time expecting different results. You go ahead and do that, but I'm in favor of removing this political class entirely. They're not fit to address issues that are very pressing and thus should either be made to change their ways or removed altogether, because the current electoral system does not allow for people to enter this system and break the hegemony of the political class. First step, stop voting and boycott relevant elections. If that doesn't work, more radical steps are required.

 I know this isn't addressed to me but I fail to see how boycotting an election can change things much. It might make you feel better and such, but unless a LOT of other people boycott with you (or you have a media machine like many politicians do), it likely will not come to much. It also won't render any voting invalid. By removing yourself from the process, you're also removing your voice too. 

 What radical means do you mean?

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #186 on: April 15, 2014, 01:47:21 PM »
Quote from: mia h
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....

Military folks need special provisions to vote because they may be at sea or forced to be in places where they cannot vote in person. There is a difference between this and not wanting to get up and vote because of the time of day or because its a little inconvenient.

This is getting away from the main topic.


Quote from: mia h
So if you think Obama is a socialist then Reagan must have been a communist.

Honestly, I was not really paying attention to politics when Regan was in office and have never really read up on his policies. I was young at the time, so my views on him were rather superficial. I can't answer this question factually.

Also, I would rather not derail the topic.



Offline consortium11

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #187 on: April 15, 2014, 02:01:24 PM »
Depends on the election, in some places there are outright legitimacy standards, in Germany the elections are run under AV but there is a minimum voting threshold before parties can gain any seats at all.

That's a rather different issue though isn't it; a German election is declared "illegitimate" if the number of voters doesn't reach a certain threshold, instead a party is unable to take up seats from the second vote if they do not receive at least 5% of the vote. Considering the argument here appears to be that voting doesn't matter because the same people get in I'd have assumed you'd actually be against that system as it is a serious barrier to gaining direct political power.

I do like the point however because it touches on something that I brought up previously and seems to have been largely ignored. From what I've read of these discussions it seems people are focusing on FPTP systems. How about PR systems? Especially PR systems with a low threshold? Aren't such places a radically different proposition?

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #188 on: April 15, 2014, 02:16:56 PM »
Military folks need special provisions to vote because they may be at sea or forced to be in places where they cannot vote in person. There is a difference between this and not wanting to get up and vote because of the time of day or because its a little inconvenient.
Notice you conveniently ignored the part about the firefighters, EMT's etc

Honestly, I was not really paying attention to politics when Regan was in office and have never really read up on his policies. I was young at the time, so my views on him were rather superficial. I can't answer this question factually.
I thought you'd be able to work out that I was taking the piss there. Well a little bit, you're the one that brought so called socialists up.

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #189 on: April 15, 2014, 02:27:11 PM »
That's a rather different issue though isn't it; a German election is declared "illegitimate" if the number of voters doesn't reach a certain threshold, instead a party is unable to take up seats from the second vote if they do not receive at least 5% of the vote. Considering the argument here appears to be that voting doesn't matter because the same people get in I'd have assumed you'd actually be against that system as it is a serious barrier to gaining direct political power.

I do like the point however because it touches on something that I brought up previously and seems to have been largely ignored. From what I've read of these discussions it seems people are focusing on FPTP systems. How about PR systems? Especially PR systems with a low threshold? Aren't such places a radically different proposition?
The point I was countering was that there aren't any limits on elections, and in theory if there were enough political parties say 40, and each got 2-3% of the vote then nobody would win any seats. While there is an almost zero percent chance of that happening it is still a posibility that no party gets any seats, I assume someone somewhere has thought of that and the appropriate contingencies are in place. And I can see both sides of the argument to the 5% barrier, given German political history I can see why they would want to protect themselves against certain fringe groups that keep trying to resurface.

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #190 on: April 15, 2014, 02:56:23 PM »
For Zakharra,Kythia & Oniya's benefit lets start again:

You are about to presented with a game\model\system which ever term you prefer, it doesn't matter in this context they all mean the same thing.
For those of you that didn't want to look up ceteris paribus, it's a simple idea: anything not in the model is deemed to be constant and not revelant to the particular model in question.

The model is simple because it is trying a very simple point that people are trying very hard not to see.

As the model involves elections, lets apply two "rules" both inside the model and to the model itself:
1 - the game\model has to be accepted as is, no changing rules or conditions to suit yourself any rule changes must go through the proper process.
2 - if you don't play the game\model then you don't get to complain. Inside the model "playing the game" refers to taking part in elections, for the model itself that means answering the question Kythia (and pretty much everyone else) ducked.

Anything not clear to anyone?

The starting conditions of the model\game are:
There is a country called Votistan.
In Votistan the people are represented in a unicameral legislature called Kongrease.
Kongrease has 10 electoral districts.
For a law to pass in Kongrease all that is required a simple majority.
The rules of Kongrease are that each district must be defined so that each district represent an equal number of people.
As the total population of Votistan is 1000, each district in Kongrease has 100 voters.
There are only two political parties in Votistan the Pink Party and the Yellow Party.
There is a 50\50 split of Pink and Yellow Party supporters in each seat.
There is 100% turn out in all elections.
Voting is not performed in secret so everyone else knows who you voted for.
Any election that is a tie at the polls is decided on the toss of a coin.

Everyone still here? Anyone so completely confused and befuddled they've just given up and left already?

For most of Voistan's history every election had been a tie at the polls and the coin tosses had split equally as well.
This meant that the Kongrease had been split 50\50 and because Kongrease requires a majority of votes to pass a law, it has been impossible to pass any discriminatory laws.
But at one election there was a slight change and the Pink Party won 6 of the 10 coin tosses, they had an outright majority despite the popular vote being split 50\50.
The Pink Parties first act was to pass a law that altered the boundaries of the electoral districts by a tiny amount.
The redrawn boundaries meant that in 9 electoral districts the split of voters was now 51\49 in favour of the Pink Party, in district 10 the voter split was 41\59 in favour of the Yellow Party.
At the next election everyone turned out to vote as normal, but the voters couldn't understand how the Pink Party got a 9\1 majority in Kongrease. And then the same result happened at the next election and the next and the next.
Any time it looked like there was a possibility of a voter defecting from the Pink Party to the Yellow Party (and the idea that anyone would consider switching parties was considered an heretical thought by some) another law was passed in Kongrease to shift the boundaries around.
Just to be on the safe side the Pink Party passed another law so that voting districts didn't have to be of equal size anymore.
And then the Pink Party passed another law "Any changes to the voting process require a minimum of 8 votes to pass."


There is no coercion of voters, no voter intimidation, no voter fraud, nothing illegal happens 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 voting as they always have. Remember they have to play with the system\rules\laws as they are, but the system\rules\laws have been changed to such an extent that they have no way of gaining enough seats in Kongrease to change anything, but as the Pink Party keep on reminding them if don't play the game and vote you can't complain about the outcome. So Yellow Party supporters should keep doing the same thing over and over and expect that the outcome will be different, but that kind of behaviour falls into AA's definition of insanity. How do you change an electoral system from within when that system is immune to change?

2- Convince people in the Pink Party to switch sides. But people voted for the Pink Party for a reason, they like the Pink Party and the Pink Party likes them back and gives them perks (via Kongrease, something call orcbarrels) for being loyal. Everyone likes to be on the winning side and the Pink Party are always the winning side, why would anyone want to join the losing side? Put simply there is no incentive for anyone to defect from the Pink Party to the Yellow Party

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?

Kythia, that's the question you never answered.

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 #191 on: April 15, 2014, 03:09:36 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?

Kythia, that's the question you never answered.

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.

I think everyone understood the above though, Mia.  Your problem is that ceteris paribus isn't a magic spell.  You have come up with a model that supports your arguments then demanded no examination of that model is made.  Anyone can do that.  Within the tenants of your - once again, entirely fictional - system you are correct.  Anyone can be entirely correct if they are not bound by reality of reference to the real world.

For example - and bear in mind that you are not permitted to query this in any way shape or form:

The starting conditions of the model\game are:
There is a country called Votistan.
In Votistan the people are represented in a unicameral legislature called Kongrease.
Kongrease has 10 electoral districts.
For a law to pass in Kongrease all that is required a simple majority.
The rules of Kongrease are that each district must be defined so that each district represent an equal number of people.
As the total population of Votistan is 1000, each district in Kongrease has 100 voters.
There are only two political parties in Votistan the Pink Party and the Yellow Party.
There is a 50\50 split of Pink and Yellow Party supporters in each seat.
There is 50% turn out in all elections.
Voting is not performed in secret so everyone else knows who you voted for.
Any election that is a tie at the polls is decided on the toss of a coin.

Everyone still here? Anyone so completely confused and befuddled they've just given up and left already?

For most of Voistan's history every election had been a tie at the polls and the coin tosses had split equally as well.
This meant that the Kongrease had been split 50\50 and because Kongrease requires a majority of votes to pass a law, it has been impossible to pass any discriminatory laws.
But at one election there was a slight change and the Pink Party won 6 of the 10 coin tosses, they had an outright majority despite the popular vote being split 50\50.
The Pink Parties first act was to pass a law that altered the boundaries of the electoral districts by a tiny amount.
The redrawn boundaries meant that in 9 electoral districts the split of voters was now 51\49 in favour of the Pink Party, in district 10 the voter split was 41\59 in favour of the Yellow Party.
At the next election everyone turned out to vote as normal, but the voters couldn't understand how the Pink Party got a 9\1 majority in Kongrease. And then the same result happened at the next election and the next and the next.
Any time it looked like there was a possibility of a voter defecting from the Pink Party to the Yellow Party (and the idea that anyone would consider switching parties was considered an heretical thought by some) another law was passed in Kongrease to shift the boundaries around.
Just to be on the safe side the Pink Party passed another law so that voting districts didn't have to be of equal size anymore.
And then the Pink Party passed another law "Any changes to the voting process require a minimum of 8 votes to pass."

With me?  I've only changed one thing from your model (highlighted in red) so it should be easy enough for you to follow.

In the districts where the Pink party dominate numerically, there are 24 Yellow Party supporters who don't vote.  If just two of those voted they would carry the district despite being in the minority.

What is the best plan of action for the Yellow party:

1 - Keep voting as they always have. Remember they have to play with the system\rules\laws as they are, but the system\rules\laws have been changed to such an extent that they have no way of gaining enough seats in Kongrease to change anything, but as the Pink Party keep on reminding them if don't play the game and vote you can't complain about the outcome. So Yellow Party supporters should keep doing the same thing over and over and expect that the outcome will be different, but that kind of behaviour falls into AA's definition of insanity. How do you change an electoral system from within when that system is immune to change?

2- Convince people in the Pink Party to switch sides. But people voted for the Pink Party for a reason, they like the Pink Party and the Pink Party likes them back and gives them perks (via Kongrease, something call orcbarrels) for being loyal. Everyone likes to be on the winning side and the Pink Party are always the winning side, why would anyone want to join the losing side? Put simply there is no incentive for anyone to defect from the Pink Party to the Yellow Party

3 - Convince 2 of their supporters to vote.

Oh look!  It's a model that shows the only logical decision is the exact opposite of the one you came up with?  And, because of the magic of latin, you're not allowed to criticise the model in any way - your only option is to agree that voting makes sense and not doing is stupid.

Or, maybe, all we've shown is "if you control all the terms of the debate you can force any conclusion you like by ruling out of bounds anything that disagrees with you"

Offline 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 #192 on: April 15, 2014, 03:16:59 PM »
There's also always the avenue of making yourself as big a pest to your Kongreaseman/woman as possible about what you are dissatisfied with.  Now, if you aren't a voter, they've got no reason to listen to you, and if one person walks in - just one person - and says 'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.', then they may think he's a nut and not listen to him.  But if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, saying 'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.'  They may think it's an organization.   And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day.  I said Fifty people a day walking in, saying  'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.'   And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is.

Offline consortium11

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #193 on: April 15, 2014, 03:28:07 PM »
The point I was countering was that there aren't any limits on elections, and in theory if there were enough political parties say 40, and each got 2-3% of the vote then nobody would win any seats. While there is an almost zero percent chance of that happening it is still a posibility that no party gets any seats, I assume someone somewhere has thought of that and the appropriate contingencies are in place. And I can see both sides of the argument to the 5% barrier, given German political history I can see why they would want to protect themselves against certain fringe groups that keep trying to resurface.

Well, to get technical there would still be seats won; Germany operates a two-time voting system with the first vote being based on FPTP and giving roughly 1/3 of the seats. It's the second vote that is based on PR and thresholds. I believe most of the states which have similar systems also have a similar approach or take an either/or option (either get threshold% of the vote to be eligible or win one seat directly).

And isn't the example you give (albeit admittedly remote) actually an incentive to vote? If none of the parties are going to get above the threshold and so on paper no-one would win a seat then each vote suddenly counts for more because if the party you support could get to 5% of the overall vote they'd have a vast (if not total) majority and thus could implement pretty much all their ideas?

Offline mia h

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #194 on: April 15, 2014, 03:45:43 PM »
Kythia, I didn't bother reading very much of that as you ignored the rules of the game.
The rules are you have to play the by the rules as they, you didn't so you haven't played the game and as you haven't played the game you don't to complain about it.

The point of the model is to make a point on from there, you don't build a house by putting the roof on and then putting in the foundations. But all you seem to be intrested in is being willfully ignorant, fine that's your choice, but being willfully ignorant means you have nothing useful to add to this conversation.

Offline consortium11

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #195 on: April 15, 2014, 03:54:55 PM »
mia, I do think you should engage with Kythia's point... despite the passive-aggressiveness (and to be fair, that comes from both of you) its a strong argument against your model/position.

Your model woks if the starting position is that 100% of eligible voters vote all the time. But as soon as anything less than 100% are likely to vote then your model begins to struggle to give you the outcome you want because the better option appears to be convincing those who currently don't vote to vote.

Considering that most realistic election turnout figures across the world tend to put turnout at somewhere between 50-80%, Kythia's version of the model is on paper more realistic.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #196 on: April 15, 2014, 04:02:39 PM »
Kythia, I didn't bother reading very much of that as you ignored the rules of the game.
The rules are you have to play the by the rules as they, you didn't so you haven't played the game and as you haven't played the game you don't to complain about it.

The point of the model is to make a point on from there, you don't build a house by putting the roof on and then putting in the foundations. But all you seem to be intrested in is being willfully ignorant, fine that's your choice, but being willfully ignorant means you have nothing useful to add to this conversation.

 You know what that comes across as being? 'I don't think you're playing fair.'  I think Kythia is right. You're constructing a model where only the idea you're putting out looks good. You're not taking into account people changing their votes, public opinions, or a whole host of other variables. You've cut things down to the bare bones to get the result -you- want and are dismissing anyone else's arguments as being wrong or 'we're not reading/understanding you'.

 
There's also always the avenue of making yourself as big a pest to your Kongreaseman/woman as possible about what you are dissatisfied with.  Now, if you aren't a voter, they've got no reason to listen to you, and if one person walks in - just one person - and says 'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.', then they may think he's a nut and not listen to him.  But if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, saying 'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.'  They may think it's an organization.   And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day.  I said Fifty people a day walking in, saying  'Kongreaseman, we have a problem.'   And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is.

 *points up* is exactly right. And it's being done within the system. It's also perfectly legal and best of all, it has a fair chance of working too.

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #197 on: April 15, 2014, 04:09:05 PM »
Alright everyone, we're going to give this thread a 24 hour break. 

Edit: 

Alright, the thread is being unlocked.  Let's keep the discussion civil and respectful.  Any reports of uncivil behavior in this thread will result in this thread being locked permanently. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 08:55:09 AM by Mithlomwen »

Offline Primal

Re: Don't vote!
« Reply #198 on: April 19, 2014, 12:25:56 AM »
I'm a total n00b, and here I am making my first post (besides my questionnaire) on this topic right after it's been re-opened!  But it seems like fun.  Lots of very good points made on all sides.

The OP describes the present voting system as "a system that merely functions to serve the needs of politicians, corporations and 'the elite'."  From what I've seen thus far on the thread, it seems like most people don't completely disagree with that statement.  But (from what I can tell) they think that the correct answer to address the problem is not to stop voting, but do more of it: increase voter turn-out and use one's own vote as often as possible.
While this is a reasonable argument I can't say is wholly incorrect, my humble opinion is that such an approach to this problem has only served to delay the inevitable rise of the state rather then reverse it.  In my humble opinion, it is with excessive rise of the state that you have concurrent (I dare say necessary) rise of corporate power and the elite class.  Separating the political class and the elite class creates a false dichotomy; one gives rise to the other.  Corporate control requires a large and involved state. 

I believe attempts to change this problem by voting will fail.
Nearly everyone can sense serious problems in our political system, but most see it as trouble caused by individuals elected into office, rather then an inherent result of excessive state power.  They see all these problems, and see the answer as: the right person in office plus excessive state power so he/she can get sh*t done!  Unfortunately, they don't take the next logical step to consider what happens after "the right person for the job" (which is a dubious title to start with, and who we gave all this lovely power to in order to "fix the problem") leaves office and someone else steps in, inheriting all that power to use as they will.
Pure democracy is a tyranny of the majority.  Without strict limitations placed on government, the end result is a majority putting everyone else under their thumb vis--vis the state's monopoly on violence/use of force.  Not long after, the powers they gave the government to accomplish this are then used against them, and there's no one left to defend them nor an ideology they can rally under.

In most instances, tyranny doesn't kick the door down.  It sneaks in and takes over like a silent fart in a small room--by the time you know it's there, it's too late and everything smells like sh*t.

Further exacerbating the problem is the obvious fact that elected officials have almost no need for accountability.  They run on one set of principles and promises, do the exact opposite when they reach office, and not only does nothing happen to them but they're elected again the following cycle.  You'd think they'd be voted out of office, but they almost never are.
Government overreach has been an escalating problem.  Politicians address it occasionally, then dismiss it off-hand after they reach power because, well, they are the ones in power now, so it's alright now because they're the good guys.  And what happens to them? Nothing, and the majority of the voting populace doesn't care.  I say this because (from my own point of view) it's an observable fact over the past many decades.


I'll be picking on Obama from here on, but that's only because he's the current president.  Just about everything I say about him can be applied to the long list of his successors.

As a Libertarian, I strongly disagreed with Obama's fiscal policies.  However, his speeches on transparency, limitations of powers, and ending the wars were very warmly received on my part.  And do we have to show for it?

He promises to get the heck out of the war.


He doesn't.  Not even with two terms (and several trips to the bank!).
Is Gitmo even closed? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Well, we know he's had a few (in my humble opinion, half-hearted) gestures towards closing Gitmo.  Let's at least see what he's done in regards to the state's power in relation to keeping, trying, and releasing our detainees.  After all, he spent his time as a senator, then on his campaign trail, preaching limitation on government power and use of such power against those detained.

"We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay." -Sen. Obama, September 28, 2006

Bravo!  He must at least be working in a manner that's taking serious and real aim at getting rid of Gitmo and preventing the government from having the ability to do it again.
But... what does he actually do as president?  You guessed it.  The complete opposite.



What about his thoughts on executive overreach, privacy protection, and government spying?





The voter turn-out for both 2008 and 2012 were higher then they've been for the past half-century.  It did nothing to get us out of this mess--it didn't even slow it down.  The state just keeps growing and growing, and with it the disparity between the elite class and everyone else. 
Sure, as long as "the right person" is in office things might be Okay for a bit, hence we vote.  But even if that worked most of the time (which would be a dubious claim), a large over-powered state is just a ticking time bomb.

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 #199 on: April 19, 2014, 12:52:21 AM »
The voter turn-out for both 2008 and 2012 were higher then they've been for the past half-century.  It did nothing to get us out of this mess--it didn't even slow it down.  The state just keeps growing and growing, and with it the disparity between the elite class and everyone else. 
Sure, as long as "the right person" is in office things might be Okay for a bit, hence we vote.  But even if that worked most of the time (which would be a dubious claim), a large over-powered state is just a ticking time bomb.

Showing that politicians of the past and present deviate from their campaign platforms, even if very true, is not sufficient grounds to suggest that every future candidate be branded in the same negative light (unless their actions dictate otherwise). 

You mention that we would imagine that these flip-flopping politicians would be voted out of office, but that they almost never are.  It is due to voter misinformation.  Many people on this forum are opposed to NSA surveillance, for example, yet many will still vote Democrat or Republican in 2016 - even though it is exceedingly likely that NSA surveillance will continue with either of these parties in power.  People don't feel they have an alternative voting choice - even though there are plenty.

I am not sure what you mean by the state "growing" through elections.  Based on your perspectives, a candidate committed to your libertarian views would reduce the scale of government - unless you are assuming that candidates will invariably backtrack on their campaign promises.  I would agree that this is very true for the establishment parties.