nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bilston

pickarooney wrote: »

Time for a Califexit? Or a Texexit.

That did cross my mind regarding California earlier!

They have the economy for it anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A giant poster on the wall and 538 darts

Seems likely.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

A giant poster on the wall and 538 darts

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

Swan Curry

you have to remember that the american electoral system was (and in some areas still is) mainly concerned with denying minorities, mainly african americans, suffrage, which has led to the insane mess they have today where state governments can arbitrarily close polling stations in areas that demographically have strong opposition support

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

Their role is lessened significantly if you just elect based on the popular vote. By having the electoral college system the americans have a compromise between electing the President by a popular vote among citizens and electing the President in Congress. By just using the popular vote the largest states by population will significantly control who wins. This system allows smaller states as much of a say

pickarooney

Time for a Califexit? Or a Texexit.

Buer

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

The system is massively flawed but nobody has been able to improve it.

We saw both candidates fighting tooth and nail for the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire this week as the electorate from every walk of life had a voice and a vote that was worth fighting for.

That geographical spread and variety of electorate would be completely ignored if it was a popular vote. A candidate would never bother visiting Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska etc.

A candidate who is from California would have an automatic advantage given the massive population there. They could focus their entire campaign on the north east and Texas thereby addressing the majority of the population easily. That massive expanse from Chicago to the Pacific states could be ignored.

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

I just pointed out how that works above. In the current election, NY, NJ, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and California would account for 50% of the votes cast.

That means that a candidate could ignore more than half the states and still win the election. A far easier job to concentrate all your energy and money in some key high population states and lock up the presidency for years.

It may sound democratic to take the popular vote, but it's exactly the opposite. It would disenfranchise massive portions of the country.

Synode

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No you shouldn't. Then you have individual states always deciding it based on size and smaller states role is removed. This system allows for individual states and therefore the people within them more of a say.

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

I hear all your arguments but in my opinion, if you get more votes than the other person then you should win. Anything else is a fudge

No you shouldn't. Then you have individual states always deciding it based on size and smaller states role is removed. This system allows for individual states and therefore the people within them more of a say.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Retailers must be absolutely petrified...

Canadians are building a wall

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

I hear all your arguments but in my opinion, if you get more votes than the other person then you should win. Anything else is a fudge

Well that can happen in PR too.

Synode

I hear all your arguments but in my opinion, if you get more votes than the other person then you should win. Anything else is a fudge

irishbucsfan

Retailers must be absolutely petrified...

thomond2006

Synode wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone can get more votes yet still lose the election. I can't see any justification for that whatsoever

Each state is its own entity to an extent, I suppose the electoral college system reflects that? The fact that it's all or nothing in most states for allocating its electoral votes is bizarre however. It focuses the campaign on the 'swing states'.

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

Who cares about Regions or Urban/Rural. If more people vote for Clinton then she should be President

It's a purposely weighted system. It's that way by design. California has less electoral college votes per million people than say Montana. Otherwise, states like New York, Texas, Florida and California could almost decide a general elction by themselves.

There have been many attempts to change the system, but they all have failed.

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

Who cares about Regions or Urban/Rural. If more people vote for Clinton then she should be President

No it isn't that simple especially in a country the size of the states. This system allows all states have a say and stops candidates just focusing on the largest most populous states

Synode

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see why it is ridiculous about someone winning popular vote not winning as you must take it into account the variances between rural, urban areas etc. US is so big and this system makes it mathematically impossible for a candidate with large amounts of support in just one region to overwhelm the vote.

Who cares about Regions or Urban/Rural. If more people vote for Clinton then she should be President

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone can get more votes yet still lose the election. I can't see any justification for that whatsoever

I don't see why it is ridiculous about someone winning popular vote not winning as you must take it into account the variances between rural, urban areas etc. US is so big and this system makes it mathematically impossible for a candidate with large amounts of support in just one region to overwhelm the vote.

Synode

I read somewhere about Trump giving out about voting machines. Not sure if it was in one State only or all States

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Synode wrote: »

Ridiculous that someone can get more votes yet still lose the election. I can't see any justification for that whatsoever

Essentially there are a handful of states that you have to win and most of the rest are almost pointless.

I don't get how they have accurate numbers from states 5 minutes after polls close either. Is it all electronic or what?

Synode

Ridiculous that someone can get more votes yet still lose the election. I can't see any justification for that whatsoever

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What I always think is ludicrous is the slow process that voting entails. Huge queues for voting booths and people queuing for hours. Pretty sure if that was the case here we'd have even lower turnouts.

I know there's early voting and postal voting, but people like to leave it to the end because of the possibility of something happening that could influence their voting intentions.

Some of those queues are a result of deliberate voter suppression but the entire system is backwards and needs updating. But it's what keeps the people in power in pOwer.
I know they have different time zones across the country but they were announcing results from some while others were still voting. Makes no sense to me, surely that could influence voting?

CMOTDibbler

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Final numbers from the US. That is a staggering number of people who didn't vote. Not sure how many of them were down to the ridiculous voting rules across various places and how many of them were people who just didn't bother but still a shocking number. Essentially, whoever won, would only be representing a quarter of the population.

https://twitter.com/AaronH02056/status/796392497626882048

What I always think is ludicrous is the slow process that voting entails. Huge queues for voting booths and people queuing for hours. Pretty sure if that was the case here we'd have even lower turnouts.

I know there's early voting and postal voting, but people like to leave it to the end because of the possibility of something happening that could influence their voting intentions.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Final numbers from the US. That is a staggering number of people who didn't vote. Not sure how many of them were down to the ridiculous voting rules across various places and how many of them were people who just didn't bother but still a shocking number. Essentially, whoever won, would only be representing a quarter of the population.

https://twitter.com/AaronH02056/status/796392497626882048

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That doesn't seem to be remotely true given how much they were willing to move. If anything that sounds like the criticism that should be leveled at the troika.

What was wrong with SYRIZa's actual proposal, would it not have restored growth and actually made Greece capable of repaying their debt? While avoiding plunging millions more people into poverty? Rather than effectively forcing the citizens of Greece to live through punishment for the sins of the European banking sector.

Unfortunately this is all politically unsustainable and let's just hope Golden Dawn don't gain more ground because they're just another product of this era of economic stupidity.

I'm not really sure based on that paper whether or not it would have succeeded. It's pretty waffly tbh.

For a start, it talks about semi-privitisation to generate funds. But surely the assets that were to be privatised were already carrying debt burdens? And similarly it doesn't seem to deal with individual and business debt. Bank debt is only one side of the equation, the other side is business and private debt that has to be restructured. That process alone would take years.

It might have worked, or at least some parts of it might. The bottom line is that he took a high handed attitude to talks with Brussels, threatened Grexit as a bargaining counter and refused to compromise.

bilston

molloyjh wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the political parties that need to learn (the harsh harsh truths) about demagogues, but the electorate.

Greece might actually be a good example of this (in a few more years).

I'd like to thank this post multiple times. Politics and politicians will only change if there is the demand there from the electorate to change. That hasn't been there until now. People are pissed off that Governments don't listen to them, but then turn up to vote in low numbers for the same people time after time.

Now we're starting to see demands for change. But change towards what? What message does electing Trump or backing Farage send to politicians?

For years electorates have been complicit through a lack of action. Now that they are taking action it's massively counterproductive and sends completely the wrong message.

A definite problem in Northern Ireland!

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Buying back your own bonds on borrowed money at the original price is maybe not a blank cheque, but it is a handout. Effectively though it was borrowing under a different name.

Corruption is a separate argument though and unfortunately for him and for Greece, he was too wedded to his plan and not pragmatic enough to realise that politics is about compromise.

Corruption was and is the biggest problem for Greece. As long as it continues there will be little or no progress.

That doesn't seem to be remotely true given how much they were willing to move. If anything that sounds like the criticism that should be leveled at the troika.

What was wrong with SYRIZa's actual proposal, would it not have restored growth and actually made Greece capable of repaying their debt? While avoiding plunging millions more people into poverty? Rather than effectively forcing the citizens of Greece to live through punishment for the sins of the European banking sector.

Unfortunately this is all politically unsustainable and let's just hope Golden Dawn don't gain more ground because they're just another product of this era of economic stupidity.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's really horrifying. I feel hopeless looking at images of the KKK and knowing it's not something out of a history book.

It's long past time that the US confronted this issue head on though. Their whole society is riddled with it. And it's been swept under the carpet and ignored.

Even joked about in a knowing but ultimately complicit way such as the joke name 'Token' for the black kid in South Park.

Scratch the surface as Trump has, and the pus comes pouring out.