POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
No, I cannot justify any part of that statement or what it may imply. Thank you.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It's not FPTP that's the culprit. It's the design of our government. Unlike a parliamentary system, there's no mechanism here for power sharing (control of ministries). That kind of a system logically leads to two opposing parties.Crunchums wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:29 pmwell suppose i think both parties suck and I want to start a new party - what happens? answer: i get nowhere, because of FPTPRylinks wrote:i don't think the power of the two parties is particularly because of FPTP
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7l9QmtiXHU)
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
If just one time the new page would NOT FUCK me
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i have been manually setting page breaks to fuck you all this time
behold my mighty power
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
tell me more about how this is evidence that FPTP does not necessarily lead to two dominant parties
(source: https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons )
u gotta skate
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
they succeeded on their one issue!Crunchums wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:39 pm
tell me more about how this is evidence that FPTP does not necessarily lead to two dominant parties
(source: https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons )
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Wise One: If you would but see.
Seeker: See what?
Wise One: It is not the page that fucked you.
Seeker: That implies that I fucked the page!
Wise One: worthless, you're all worthless.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
one of the reasons the referendum happened was because the FPTP system allowed UKIP to throw the government to labour even with a minority of the votes
now i mean maybe this isn't a good outcome but it's a case where FPTP amplified a small party's power
now i mean maybe this isn't a good outcome but it's a case where FPTP amplified a small party's power
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i'm confused because this post reads like you think you are disagreeing with me, but i don't understand what we are disagreeing aboutDantes wrote: When I was a child, I used to watch election returns with my parents. Before we went to bed, we knew who had won virtually everything. It was vanishingly rare for an election not to be called that night.
Now it can be weeks of waiting punctuated by lawfare over the counting of ballots, courts injecting themselves into processes they have no business in, accusations of fraud (from both side), elections denial (pioneered by Democrats I might remind you), stories of ballot harvesting, and etc.
If you don't understand why people (particularly older people) no longer trust elections, I cannot help you.
also could you please stop implying that i love the democratic party; to me they're just the party that sucks less than the republican party
u gotta skate
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
if someone in the US created a minority party that was capable of sabotaging one of the two major parties in national elections, like UKIP threatened the conservatives, they would have a lot of power to demand concessions.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
so the claim here is that if we had not-FPTP voters would still scorn third parties because of the workings of congressional committees? i can buy that two parties is optimal for controlling congressional committees (or whatever), but i do not buy that voters would scorn third parties for that reason
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
maybe i'm confused, but i don't understand how FPTP was relevant there. given a certain distribution of seats, UKIP did stuff - that's downstream of FPTP. FPTP was only relevant in terms of how that distribution of seats came to be.
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
what is this then
(and I thought you were doing it also when were talking about Ds getting elected in Alaska but re-reading your posts I think that was just put into my head by your phrasing with "I'm going to suggest something to you that you're not going to like" but you didn't actually mean it the way that I took it, though side note I still do not understand what you were getting at herepioneered by Democrats I might remind you
)Testing two options directly against one-another produces different outcomes than asking you to rank your preferences among multiple options.i do not understand this claimDantes wrote:I'm going to suggest something to you that you're not going to like. Ranked choice voting does not force people to actually consider the alternatives and make a real choice.
u gotta skate
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
imagine if the green party started getting 5-10% of the vote, mostly from people who would have voted Dem. This does not win any seats, but it hoses the democrats and makes republicans win elections.
Like you said, this is a reason why voters might reject third parties, but it's double-edged. If the green party did get a substantial fraction of the vote, they would be able to extract concessions from the dems in exchange for not running a candidate or in an attempt to bring green voters back, even without winning any seats.
The conservatives called a brexit referendum in part because FPTP meant UKIP had the ability to damage the conservatives much more than their vote share would suggest. If ranked choice were in effect, UKIP would not have had as much power to push the conservatives towards brexit.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
you are right that the fact that there are third parties in other countries with FPTP contradicts my claim that third parties in the US have zero chance (though not the weaker claim that FPTP leads to two dominant parties); i am not an expert at this stuff but my understanding is that the US is an outlier in this regard - my guess is it's because of the US being very oriented around presidential elections? i suppose i can retreat to a weaker claim: third parties would have a much better chance of gaining traction with not-FPTP than FPTPRylinks wrote:if someone in the US created a minority party that was capable of sabotaging one of the two major parties in national elections, like UKIP threatened the conservatives, they would have a lot of power to demand concessions.
u gotta skate
-
- .
How'd you know that loving kittens is my one defining trait? - Posts: 11770
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
yeah it also turns out to be problematically unintuitive that your preferred candidate can be winning when half the votes are counted and then losing when they're all counted
that this has been actually problematic leaves me with little taste for a more unintuitive system
wow, [you]. that all sounds terrible. i hope it gets better for you
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
ah this argument is interesting - that even though FPTP is admittedly directly harmful to policy X (in the sense of hurting its proponents chances of getting elected in a given election), in the long run the party being harmed might adopt policy X in order to avoid that harm. a fair point! but FPTP is still concentrating power in the two dominant parties in this pictureRylinks wrote:imagine if the green party started getting 5-10% of the vote, mostly from people who would have voted Dem. This does not win any seats, but it hoses the democrats and makes republicans win elections.
Like you said, this is a reason why voters might reject third parties, but it's double-edged. If the green party did get a substantial fraction of the vote, they would be able to extract concessions from the dems in exchange for not running a candidate or in an attempt to bring green voters back, even without winning any seats.
The conservatives called a brexit referendum in part because FPTP meant UKIP had the ability to damage the conservatives much more than their vote share would suggest. If ranked choice were in effect, UKIP would not have had as much power to push the conservatives towards brexit.
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Why would anyone think that with RCV, the winner will be neither a Democrat nor a Republican
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
definitely if you adopted RCV (or some other non-FPTP system) it's not like overnight third parties are gonna spring up and start winning elections. but you would enable people to support third parties in elections without simultaneously harming the D/R party that they otherwise would have voted for.Doug wrote:Why would anyone think that with RCV, the winner will be neither a Democrat nor a Republican
but to me the benefit is less about breaking the D/R stranglehold and more about changing which Ds/Rs win elections, because now in a deep-red state (for example) you're less likely to get [far-right R wins primary, then general election] and more likely to get [medium-right R wins general] because you no longer have primaries. and then congress would be a lot more functional because there are fewer crazy extremists
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
That was literally in response to a post you made about Trump preaching election denial. If your argument is that distrust in election outcomes on the right is based on Trump crying about election denialism, you have to acknowledge that he didn't start that, he just echoed and amplified something that the left has been doing for two decades! You can't throw all of that on Trump and just give a pass to the other side's contribution to the problem.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
ah, i get youDantes wrote: That was literally in response to a post you made about Trump preaching election denial. If your argument is that distrust in election outcomes on the right is based on Trump crying about election denialism, you have to acknowledge that he didn't start that, he just echoed and amplified something that the left has been doing for two decades! You can't throw all of that on Trump and just give a pass to the other side's contribution to the problem.
i did not mean to imply that election denialism did not exist before Trump; the claim I was trying to make (directed at Khaos) was that election skepticism among voters is more driven by election denialism on the part of politicians than actual problems with elections
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
A big issue though is, where is the money, where does the money come from and where does it go. The money is entangled with the two-party systemCrunchums wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:40 amdefinitely if you adopted RCV (or some other non-FPTP system) it's not like overnight third parties are gonna spring up and start winning elections. but you would enable people to support third parties in elections without simultaneously harming the D/R party that they otherwise would have voted for.Doug wrote:Why would anyone think that with RCV, the winner will be neither a Democrat nor a Republican
but to me the benefit is less about breaking the D/R stranglehold and more about changing which Ds/Rs win elections, because now in a deep-red state (for example) you're less likely to get [far-right R wins primary, then general election] and more likely to get [medium-right R wins general] because you no longer have primaries. and then congress would be a lot more functional because there are fewer crazy extremists
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
cotton eye (I) joeDoug wrote:
A big issue though is, where is the money, where does the money come from and where does it go
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
also like, suicide bomber single issue parties threatening the ones in power is not really my idea of good third-party politicsCrunchums wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:13 amah this argument is interesting - that even though FPTP is admittedly directly harmful to policy X (in the sense of hurting its proponents chances of getting elected in a given election), in the long run the party being harmed might adopt policy X in order to avoid that harm. a fair point! but FPTP is still concentrating power in the two dominant parties in this pictureRylinks wrote:imagine if the green party started getting 5-10% of the vote, mostly from people who would have voted Dem. This does not win any seats, but it hoses the democrats and makes republicans win elections.
Like you said, this is a reason why voters might reject third parties, but it's double-edged. If the green party did get a substantial fraction of the vote, they would be able to extract concessions from the dems in exchange for not running a candidate or in an attempt to bring green voters back, even without winning any seats.
The conservatives called a brexit referendum in part because FPTP meant UKIP had the ability to damage the conservatives much more than their vote share would suggest. If ranked choice were in effect, UKIP would not have had as much power to push the conservatives towards brexit.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
replace trump with any other name if you must. it doesn't matter, the response was to be taken in context with rylinks's post/commentCrunchums wrote:ah, i get youDantes wrote: That was literally in response to a post you made about Trump preaching election denial. If your argument is that distrust in election outcomes on the right is based on Trump crying about election denialism, you have to acknowledge that he didn't start that, he just echoed and amplified something that the left has been doing for two decades! You can't throw all of that on Trump and just give a pass to the other side's contribution to the problem.
i did not mean to imply that election denialism did not exist before Trump; the claim I was trying to make (directed at Khaos) was that election skepticism among voters is more driven by election denialism on the part of politicians than actual problems with elections
an election where someone wins by a small margin seems less trustworthy than one with a slightly larger margin, which is accomplished with RCV (when you report the final results)
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
isnt that how it already worksSkeletor wrote:yeah it also turns out to be problematically unintuitive that your preferred candidate can be winning when half the votes are counted and then losing when they're all counted
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
oh actually i realized one big difference between the UK and the US: in the US the most common outcome is gridlock, while in the UK, one party will always form a government. A filibuster-proof trifecta might only happen once every few decades. Labour winning is an ordinary electoral defeat, but the GOP winning a supermajority is an extremely bad outcome for the dems and the greens.