U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[matias93 7,535]

I've noted too that most media is biased against Trump in terms of content (and favouring him with covering time) but both things are very rational: on one side, the guy is a showman and everything he do is warranted to give rating and clicks, on the other, is an authoritarian populist that, in office, will surely unleash an unseen repression against free press. Journalists and media people are simply doing what benefit then the most.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm not even from the US. What I meant was just an overview I had. Here debate's moderators serve only to ask questions and control the time, leaving the candidates say what they want in their time. Being a lie or not, the moderator does not intervene, because if indeed there was a lie, it would be good to hear what the other candidate has to say first. Also, if a lie is told, the press doesn't waste time and goes to report soon after the debate - on the Internet even during the debate. I see no such need of the journalist be involved in such cases. Imagine that, Trump tells an absurd lie, then the moderator just pass the time for Clinton and she says nothing about it. Wouldn't it be strange even to her own voters? I'm not saying Holt wanted to harm Trump, however from the moment he takes the word and enters the discussion against him - and it doesn't matter the subject - it seems a way to help the other candidate, purposely or not.
Probably the only thing I've talked about this subject here was when I said once that Clinton and her party's plans really look like the ones from the impeached president of Brazil, Rousseff, and her parties, that's why somehow I don't really sympathize with her, but this superficial reason doesn't mean I support Trump, I don't have enough knowledge of the American situation to support someone there, I only made an observation about the debate.

[Sabretooth78 808]

On 9/30/2016 at 2:26 PM, JP Schriefer said:

Probably the only thing I've talked about this subject here was when I said once that Clinton and her party's plans really look like the ones from the impeached president of Brazil, Rousseff, and her parties, that's why somehow I don't really sympathize with her, but this superficial reason doesn't mean I support Trump, I don't have enough knowledge of the American situation to support someone there, I only made an observation about the debate.

That very concept would make the average American's head explode, but just because you don't support one doesn't mean you have to support the other.  All I see in this election are two very narcissistic, irreparably corrupt and fundamentally flawed personalities running for an office that quite frankly is a little a bit "trumped up."

[LexusInfernus 908]

Its better if moderators are involved. It is after all their job to moderate the debate, and that includes pointing out obvious nonsense a candidate is spouting. 

You could argue its the job of the other candidate to do this, but in these debates settings its FAAAR to easy for candidates to completely sidestep and ignore the accusations of their opponents that they are lying. You can't do that when the guy leading the debate is dryly pointing out to the audience that what you're saying is nonsense. 

[Fantozzi 4,068]

We in germany - after WW2 - had to learn journalism again and we learned it from england (BBC) and america. Most german journalists and Broadcasters of the early 50ties had their antetypes there.

And one of the things we learned by then was - check the equipment before going on air.

 

And now our antetypes have such an important broadcast - a four years event - and they forget to check Mrt. Trumps microphone before going on air.

 

That's really a shame.

 

[Odainsaker 2,136]

While Trump's microphone was fine for the television broadcast, it apparently had issues for the audience in the auditorium, though I still think the bigger issue in his debate disaster was Trump himself.  The auditorium microphone did not bunglingly bring up Rosie O'Donnell and Sean Hannity on its own, and even Clinton heard him well enough to clearly be visibly thinking to herself, "should I interrupt his runaway babble or just let him keep burying himself?"  Saturday Night Live and Alec Baldwin were far too hilariously accurate in their parody of the debate debacle.

Still, audio should have been checked, and so should camera placement and angle, as we saw on the Vice Presidential Debate.  I thought while watching the split-screen live that it was mistakenly odd that Tim Kaine was often arguing towards the left side of my screen while Mike Pence was more often looking directly into the camera.  CNN's David Gergen pointed out in the immediate post-debate round-up that the camera angles were indeed horrible, particularly for Kaine, and now The Huffington Post has analyzed the problem in the article "About Those Bad Camera Angles at the VP Debate."  The debate is being rated a narrow win for Pence, who many viewers apparently thought seemed more composed and measured, regardless of what he actually said in his answers, which many admit were evasive and even laughably false.  Or maybe he just connected better because he looked directly into the camera and, by extension, directly into the eyes of the greater mass of television viewers.  Appearances matter, and it can be argued looking at the thin victory margin that the furtive Kaine was harmed not only by his own irritatingly interruptive combativeness, but by the simple camera angle and his failure to directly address it.

Lesson for all you aspiring politicians:  always answer into the television camera for those national debates, even if you are actually sitting at a round table with the moderator skewed off to your side.  Just as there are supposed to be expert audio technicians, there is an entire industry of experts devoted to composing how people look on a television screen, and both fields and handlers for the Commission on Presidential Debates have so far failed in their setups and rehearsal coaching.

 

While I'm waxing on split screens, I had another revelation immediately after the VP Debate when Donald Trump's son Eric Trump was interviewed on CNN.  He looked strikingly familiar, and I finally realized from where:

He's General Hux of the First Order from "Star Wars:  The Force Awakens"!  While General Leia was surreally channeling Hillary Clinton, villainous General Hux was a prickish Space Nazi.  I know, we shouldn't read too much into this, after all, First Order Supreme Leader Snoke is Space Gollum, and Bill Clinton did "Starr Wars."  Still, at this rate, maybe the final Presidential Debate between Clinton and Trump can be moderated by Chewbacca!

 

[matias93 7,535]

2 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

Or maybe he just connected better because he looked directly into the camera and, by extension, directly into the eyes of the greater mass of television viewers.  Appearances matter, and it can be argued looking at the thin victory margin that the furtive Kaine was harmed not only by his own irritatingly interruptive combativeness, but by the simple camera angle and his failure to directly address it.

Hate to bring this commonplace critic, but this is too much Fahrenheit 451 to let it pass: it is a terrible signal that the things that define which candidate wins or loses a debate are merely esthetical, even more when their campaigns and policies cannot be more different (well, they can, but we are talking about the US). To me, everything points to an electoral cycle that, no matter who gets elected, will be historically lamented and frowned upon.

[rsc204 21,865]

Yeah congrats America, unless something really weird and unprecedented happens, you are about to top George Bush Jnr as the most stupid and disliked US president of all time. From the perspective of the rest of the world that is.

Still, there may be some merit in one of Trump's arguments. How's about a kickstarter for the world to build a gigantic dome around the entire US. At least that should prevent any potential crazy from inflicting the rest of us?

<Note to Americans>
I've been accused in the past of being a hater of US citizens. That's really not true, I'm an equal opportunities xenophobe . But neither of these candidates is fit to run a child's birthday party, let alone a country, how on earth does democracy come to this!?! You've all got guns right, can't you do something about it?

Disclaimer: MGB does not condone the shooting of anyone, no matter how well deserved it may be. You all know I'm not being serious, right?

[APSMS 1,893]

6 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

... how on earth does democracy come to this!?! You've all got guns right, can't you do something about it?

Disclaimer: MGB does not condone the shooting of anyone, no matter how well deserved it may be. You all know I'm not being serious, right?

You know, you used to be able to say and think these things without either needing a disclaimer or being worried about "inciting violence and terrorism". I blame liberals for that, though I'm typically a moderate who leans conservative on social issues and liberal on political ones (and the Republicans are just as responsible anyways).

[rsc204 21,865]

Given the US immigration stance on social media accounts, chances are I'm now banned from America, disclaimer or otherwise. Sans disclaimer, GSG9 (German SWAT) might have come knocking.

[matias93 7,535]

Luckily here in Chile to load guilt of our problems (or more in general, of all problems) on the US is a very accepted activity, so there will be no trouble on saying I have frankly no expectatives for the relations between the US and third world countries, independently who wins. Case apart for Gary Johnson and his reiterative Aleppo moments: that attitude on the White House on the 1970s would have saved thousands of lives and dozens of democracies here in Latin America, even if it would surely harm the US internally.

The point is, living on what is formal or informally always a colony, one learns to be cynic about all big power approaches, and to understand that no developed country can see for their interests while collaborating honestly here: there's always some (barely) hidden agenda and reasonably, minimal empathy for people as different as us.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

4 hours ago, matias93 said:

Hate to bring this commonplace critic, but this is too much Fahrenheit 451 to let it pass: it is a terrible signal that the things that define which candidate wins or loses a debate are merely esthetical, even more when their campaigns and policies cannot be more different (well, they can, but we are talking about the US). To me, everything points to an electoral cycle that, no matter who gets elected, will be historically lamented and frowned upon.

The bitter thing is - most of them think people can be easily manipulated this way. When my daughter was 14,15 years old she couldn't reflect on the meta-level of media, now she's 18 and she can in many parts. The bitter thing is that they think people are as stupid that they don't get it when they are manipulated and TV-watchers are stupid little sheeps. There is a little story about a german newspaper - doesn't really fit in the main topic. It is a boulevard paper known to be read mainly by workers and non-academics. In the 70ties, months before election,  they made a big campaign for the conservative party. But there were some social scientists getting interested in this, asking how much can media influence/manipulate people. So they asked readers before and after this campaign whom they will vote. The result was - after the campaign almost nothing had changed. The workers and non-academics were still voting for the labor-party but they were also still reading a newspaper that was devoted for the conservative party. They could make a difference between their own opinion and the opinions they read. Look at that. People can think themselve, without a helping hand by media. Surprise, surprise.

So sadly - manipulation on the level of arguments doesn't work really well. Mostly you get the effect that the more you argue the more inacessible the one becomes you are arguing to. That's why they tell to Mrs. Clinton to smile more often. Because manipulation works on the level of the subconsciouness far better.

And therefore it happens today - that on the level on arguments debates almost getting void . as the bizarre situation is that mostly you won't convince someone with another opinion with arguments but instead with smiling and trying to be sympatic and trying to reach his emotional 'receptors' instead of his 'brain'.

That's what todays election battles are mostly about and why we so often miss arguments for our brains.

But now comes the really funny thing, where this tactics becomes so stupid. Emotional manipulation may work best - but only as long as it is kept on the level of subconsciousness. When you bring it to the level of conscioness like @Odainsaker did in his post - those kind of manipulations don't work anymore. One could say - as soon as they are brought from the emotional level to the rational level they have lost effect. So one could say, they could stop this kind of manipulation at all, as we, we media consumers, grew up in some sense and learned to misstrust the 'always smiles' of commercials. We got known to those 'tricks' reaching our emotions. So basically they could stop this and turn back to the arguments.

And thats why we spend so much time with this stuff camera angels, microphones, gestures. We make our mind up about beeing emotionally manipulated.

People aren't that stupid as they sometimes (often?) think. But on the other hand it's well known that arguments don't make an election battle as most people are resistant to arguments. To convince them you have to seduce them.

And I'm convinced - if Mrs. Clinton was 30, 40 years younger and present herself as a naive little girl - Trump wouldn't have any chance against her. And maybe that's all his frustration. On this level, to affect people emotionally, he hasn't sharp weapons except of this one - dealing with fear - making people fear of everything outside their world (the united states) and then playing the role of 'brave father' - "don't be afraid of all the ghosts under your bed I told you about, I'll sweep them out". This is his emotional card he plays against clinton's 'pepsondent smile'

But I'm telling no news here. I think you all understood this.

So really, they could turn back to the arguments. As most of the people aren't that stupid not to understand those 'emotional games' they play.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

11 hours ago, APSMS said:

You know, you used to be able to say and think these things without either needing a disclaimer or being worried about "inciting violence and terrorism". I blame liberals for that, though I'm typically a moderate who leans conservative on social issues and liberal on political ones (and the Republicans are just as responsible anyways).

Meh, its not like several prominent Republicans have alluded to this before (the use guns thing that is). 

Really as long as your white you can yell about wanting to start an armed insurrection against the government as much as you want. Only when you start buying the actual equipment to do it you may find yourself the target of an FBI sting operation. 

[APSMS 1,893]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Really as long as your white you can yell about wanting to start an armed insurrection against the government as much as you want. Only when you start buying the actual equipment to do it you may find yourself the target of an FBI sting operation. 

My point was that, generally speaking, it's no longer socially acceptable for anyone to acknowledge that, sometimes, certain people need to be shot or go away. Instead we're all supposed to pretend to like each other when the obvious truth is so different.

It's false, and maybe it's just cause I live in California, but the point was that no one ever did anything about it in the past either, but heaven help you if you bring it up today.

[matias93 7,535]

That's why the ancient democracy of Athens had the ostracism: getting rid of pesky politicians without bloodspiling

[APSMS 1,893]

I would prefer a system more akin to the Swiss system: A Federal Direct Democracy.
 It costs the government more, sure, but at least this way they cannot pull shenanigans without the consent of the people.
 It's ridiculously easy to call a referendum on a vote that the Federal legislature passes. Moreover, the voting is done in such a way that one province/canton cannot dominate over the others simply because it has the most people. There must be a quorum, and consensus not only by more than 50% of the population, but also 51% of the cantons must agree in a referendum.

California has the referendum process, and it has gotten less and less accessible due to the way the law is written (as the population has grown; you also can't use the internet to gather signatures, and petition signature gathering has gotten significantly more expensive as time goes on). People argue that a republic system is to protect the uninformed masses from themselves, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Swiss populace is better informed, more aware, and more involved in their government than almost any other population on the planet, and it's almost certainly because they can have a direct influence over what their government decides to do. More importantly, they understand what impact they can have on their government, and can see immediate responses, which is more than can be said for the American political system. Consider that it's still possible in America to win a majority of the popular vote and still lose the election due to the electoral college system, which has only gotten worse since its inception.

You can argue that they're backwards (Women didn't get the right to vote until 1974, IIRC), but I can say that when they did give women the right to vote, a majority of their people had to agree with it. You can't argue that they aren't following the will of the people, and really, isn't that the entire point of any democratic system? If we were supposed to be protecting ourselves from the unintelligent masses, why not elect a Dictator and get it over with? (Yes, I'm aware what the founding fathers of America thought.)

So if you ask me, the only reason I would support Trump over Hillary Clinton (because they're both liars, and cheats, and have done nasty things in the name of "business as usual"), is because with Clinton, I know what I'm buying, and I don't like it. At least with Trump, there's a surprise in every package. I'd consider writing in Bernie Sanders just for the heck of it, but I'm not registered to vote, and don't actually believe in voting (religious reasons). Even though I don't like everything Bernie Sanders is for, I trust his honesty that he would fight for the American people, and not for the cronies in Washington; He wouldn't do a heel-face turn like Obama, who I find to be genuine, but not honest (does that make any sense?).

Anyways, that's my rant. Sorry.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The question is whether you think people will be happier if 51% can dictate their will to the other 49%. 

And would it work in the United States? Some of the problems you mention with the current system would immediately return if this method was transplanted to the US. The coastal states have generally more people living in them, while the states in the center are almost devoid of people. The Coastal states also tend to be a bit more on the liberal side on a lot of issues. So in a referendum, they would get the majority in terms of population. But do they have the majority in terms of states? Well, maybe but usually barely, because about half of the states are located in the center and they tend to be a lot more conservative on a lot of issues. In other words, a minority of people has an immediate disproportionate say in the elections. 

At the same time, if you remove this need for a majority of states to agree to it as well, it will mean that policies are made in in the coastal states and they get to dictate policy to a majority of states and most of the US landmass. Fair? Not exactly. 

This type of direct democracy in Switzerland works is because Switzerland is a very homogeneous society. Switzerland is for the Swiss and they have worked tirelessly to keep it that way. That does mean that the extremes of their political spectrum are much closer together, especially compared to the United States. So sure, if the Swiss liberals lose a referendum to the Swiss conservatives, they aren't happy but they will immediately get over it, because they aren't arch enemies yet. See what happens in the US if the liberals or the conservatives lose from each other. Each side throws a fit, accuses the other side of all kinds of nasty nonsense and each side further entrenches itself. Their mindset becomes more and more absolute. Now imagine a system that consistently is going to emphasize the differences between conservatives and liberals? In 10 years political polarization will be so extreme the country would tear itself apart. 

And then we aren't even talking yet about how such system would further marginalize minority groups exactly because minority groups don't have much say in a direct democracy because they are a minority. Or how it would open up new avenues for big business to corrupt the political system. 

So yeah, there are quite some issues to consider before you transplant a system. Or better put, just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in other places as well. 

[rsc204 21,865]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

The question is whether you think people will be happier if 51% can dictate their will to the other 49%. 

Well that's pretty much exactly what happened with the BREXIT vote. I'm glad to see the politicians didn't use the small margin as an excuse to ignore the will of the people, even if that will was only a few percentage points over the line.

The problem with most voting systems, including normal UK elections is that vastly more than 50% of the populous can vote for someone. But those votes don't really count, because on a region/by region basis, more regions wanted the other lot. At least a simplified system like this is fairer. For example, to re-phrase your question:

Do you think people will be happier when 30% of the people can dictate their will to the other 70%.

Kinda makes a mockery of your point, yet is pretty much how the current system works.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

@LexusInfernus

Very important point. And that's what sometimes frustrates me, how politics is painting a picture of society that is quite 'medieval' or romantic. Still thinking a society of 100 Billion of people can be a 'Yes we can' (Merkel: "wir schaffen das" - we can do it), acting like an overall organism (with differerent parts) or like some kind of 'tribe' with strong emotional bounds between the elements. Truth is - modern societies of this sizes even the singular 'society' doesn't really fit - you'll have many different societies under one nation and there is nothing all of them have in common - even not national identity. You'll always find many people singing 'This is not America."

It has become a romantic idear a nation could be united this way by ideals all people share. Many parliaments in the western world already show this - interests splinter up more and more. You can't get majorities by one big idear, by moral ideals, by patriotism. And watching europe they all have problems to gain a majority that can form a stable governement - most governements reminds me more of tightrope walkers and also Mr. Obama became such a tightrope walker, seeing how difficult it is to find 'clear' majorities for any thing. What was the last gouvernal decision in america more than 80 percent of the people agreed with? In my home country I can remember only the reunion back 1989. Since then I didn't see any such majority on any deciscion.

I can't remember any thing - no matter on which of the democratic contries I look - where there where great majorities about. Everything became a 55:45 or 60:40. It's not that the Brexit had a broad majority, it's not Mr. Obamas social reforms had a broad majority. Except of Turkey and Hungary you can't regard modern nations anymore as 'folk' or 'the people', somthing that prefers to act 'as one'. But many politicians still lives in the hubris, they can unite them - they way it was long ago in those anciend lands where gods ruled 'their people'. 

Well and you're right, switzerland is particular. Some way they managed to remain still 'hill people' on one site and to have a modern economy on the other site. You know, they aren't even a republic. Their national form is called 'Eidgenossenschaft'. Which is something in between   'Confederation' and 'Brotherhood' - based on an oath.

I don't know, but I doubt one can find an oath a great majority of the americans are happy with. This times are over where nations were like brotherhoods. They simply became too big and too colourful to lead them with national romantics. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

17 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Well that's pretty much exactly what happened with the BREXIT vote. I'm glad to see the politicians didn't use the small margin as an excuse to ignore the will of the people, even if that will was only a few percentage points over the line.

The problem with most voting systems, including normal UK elections is that vastly more than 50% of the populous can vote for someone. But those votes don't really count, because on a region/by region basis, more regions wanted the other lot. At least a simplified system like this is fairer. For example, to re-phrase your question:

Do you think people will be happier when 30% of the people can dictate their will to the other 70%.

Kinda makes a mockery of your point, yet is pretty much how the current system works.

Well then we are talking about the UK election system, which is ridiculously unfair and undemocratic. 

But simplifying voting systems hardly ever makes them fairer. Votes simply aren't distributed evenly across a nation and a simplified system usually means that one group gets a decisive advantage over everyone else. In the strictest sense you can argue that if 51% wants something its fair because they are the majority, but applying that logic to nations and societies is a sure way to rip nations and societies to shreds. The whole social contract starts to break up if one group, by its virtue of size just gets to dominate the course of society without considering the effects that has on the people that aren't part of that group but still make up a significant portion of society. 

A good democracy must avoid a tyranny by a majority as much as it must avoid a tyranny by a minority. 

13 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

@LexusInfernus

Very important point. And that's what sometimes frustrates me, how politics is painting a picture of society that is quite 'medieval' or romantic. Still thinking a society of 100 Billion of people can be a 'Yes we can' (Merkel: "wir schaffen das" - we can do it), acting like an overall organism (with differerent parts) or like some kind of 'tribe' with strong emotional bounds between the elements. Truth is - modern societies of this sizes even the singular 'society' doesn't really fit - you'll have many different societies under one nation and there is nothing all of them have in common - even not national identity. You'll always find many people singing 'This is not America."

It has become a romantic idear a nation could be united this way by ideals all people share. Many parliaments in the western world already show this - interests splinter up more and more. You can't get majorities by one big idear, by moral ideals, by patriotism. And watching europe they all have problems to gain a majority that can form a stable governement - most governements reminds me more of tightrope walkers and also Mr. Obama became such a tightrope walker, seeing how difficult it is to find 'clear' majorities for any thing. What was the last gouvernal decision in america more than 80 percent of the people agreed with? In my home country I can remember only the reunion back 1989. Since then I didn't see any such majority on any deciscion.

Nah, I don't think its entirely true. There are still values that can unite people, that if not all people, at least most people can get behind. Its just that no one is appealing to those values anymore. I mean, look at Europe, what party is still appealing to our core values? Liberty, fairness, equality, human rights, etc. What party still has the guts to say that they stand for these things on principal? No one, because they are either to afraid to get attacked on it by populists, or because at this point they have built up a reputation of conveniently ignoring all those values for (political) profit. 

But look at Merkel. When she said 'Wir schaffen das' she showed true leadership. And that did resonate with a lot of people, at least for a while. If it didn't, there wouldn't have been all those people welcoming the refugees on trainstations. 

[rsc204 21,865]

I'm sorry, but how is 51% of people being listened to or getting their way, fairer than a system where less than 50% do? This argument is a logical nonsense. Sure, almost half of Brits didn't get what they wanted re: BREXIT, but that's not unfair. Unfair would be to ignore the majority.

That's a bit like saying a team that scored two goals should win against a team that scored three. It doesn't matter it's only one goal difference, scoring one more makes you the winner, anything else is simply ridiculous.

I get that the BREXT vote will have huge ramifications, just like a general election has the potential to greatly alter the direction of a nation. But that still doesn't change the fact that 51% is a majority, however slim the margin.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Nah, I don't think its entirely true. There are still values that can unite people, that if not all people, at least most people can get behind. Its just that no one is appealing to those values anymore. I mean, look at Europe, what party is still appealing to our core values? Liberty, fairness, equality, human rights, etc. What party still has the guts to say that they stand for these things on principal? No one, because they are either to afraid to get attacked on it by populists, or because at this point they have built up a reputation of conveniently ignoring all those values for (political) profit. 

 

Perhaps I could render this more precicely from my point of view. Shure you're right. When we sit together in a cinema and there's a funny scene we most probably will laugh at it and a big majority will do this at this point a minority may be disgusted or something else. Don't know. So one could say - whe are sharing this moment. I would say how we are sharing these things 'equality', 'human rights' etc. is similar. It's like sharing a dream - things, having in mind. And the european union has many papers on human rights the same way and every member f.e. has signed to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and there was celebration about it, they may have played Beethoven and cheered with sparkling wine - and all this feeled good and united and quite the same as we were together in cinema. How to say - as long as human rights remain on paper they are like jokes in cinema, only some sort of dream.

And then there are coming the refugees. And suddenly all those listening to Beethoven and cheering with sparkling wine before say, look, there is an Article 15 in our wonderful ECHR - and this article says: "in case of emergency human rights can be suspended". Well, so let's pause humanity for the moment.

But those ideals you named they need to be something immovable and stable for you to be able to trust in them. You can trust only in values they turn out exactly then - in the emergency case, in the case you and me need it. Not on the paper - then when I'm suffering from injustice I ask for justice. If ideals work only on paper they have no worth as ideals but only as dreams we are dreaming of.

And you and me - as we see the wheels turning on and seeing politicians turning what is blue into green and making ideals opportun to fit the situation - we're retreat in our dreams to have our ideals still working. We reunite in cinema to share those things.

Or without metaphors:

All those ideals losing their liability with every time they are broken by political realism.

And I must confess, you now did surprise me with your answer, as I can't imagine you as a person who still has great believe that those ideals the european union gave us on paper would count much when there's need of them.

This happened just to often to still believe those ideals would be kept exactly then when needed.

But then - if those ideals only have their value in our dreams, inside of our cinema, they won't unite us in the 'emergency case' in the case they really needed. That's what the refugee crisis teaches.

As ideals have lost their liability - they will separate us on the way - we shurely start from the same point, that we share, but suddenly we will quarrel about the dircetion to arrive best..We will start debating f.e. 'is it time for arcticle 15 of the ECHR?' As we're making those a thing of negotiation as soon as we leave the cinema.

Because those ideals became negotiatible they can only unite us as long as there is no real need for them. As long as we're in our walled gardens.

But wait until I knock at your door and ask you for money. How suddenly what we share as a meaning of 'humanity' becomes a question of negotiations.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

7 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I'm sorry, but how is 51% of people being listened to or getting their way, fairer than a system where less than 50% do? This argument is a logical nonsense. Sure, almost half of Brits didn't get what they wanted re: BREXIT, but that's not unfair. Unfair would be to ignore the majority.

That's a bit like saying a team that scored two goals should win against a team that scored three. It doesn't matter it's only one goal difference, scoring one more makes you the winner, anything else is simply ridiculous.

I get that the BREXT vote will have huge ramifications, just like a general election has the potential to greatly alter the direction of a nation. But that still doesn't change the fact that 51% is a majority, however slim the margin.

Yeah but you can't run a country or society like that. 51% vs 49% is basically an even split, picking either option will piss off a more than significant chunk of the population. Either way you will end up delegitimizing the government itself because either way it will be seen as ignoring the wishes of a significant group of people. You can't go around a country telling half the population they can go f themselves because the other half had 1% more votes in the last election. That will turn people against each other and it will turn people against the government. 

The best way to solve this is to find a middle ground, a compromise that will take into account the wishes of both groups but ensures that neither of the two can call themselves the 'winner' on the issue. 

[Fantozzi 4,068]

8 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I'm sorry, but how is 51% of people being listened to or getting their way, fairer than a system where less than 50% do? This argument is a logical nonsense. Sure, almost half of Brits didn't get what they wanted re: BREXIT, but that's not unfair. Unfair would be to ignore the majority.

That's a bit like saying a team that scored two goals should win against a team that scored three. It doesn't matter it's only one goal difference, scoring one more makes you the winner, anything else is simply ridiculous.

I get that the BREXT vote will have huge ramifications, just like a general election has the potential to greatly alter the direction of a nation. But that still doesn't change the fact that 51% is a majority, however slim the margin.

Uh ... elections. You know, in four years the american people can change their mind and vote for another president. And I'm also feel lucky that life gives me chances to change my mind and try things again. The british should have thought earlier if a majority of 51 percent is sufficient on a choice you can only make once in your life.

For me the vote tells nothing more that people are undecided about the future. Well and in someway you have also to accept this - to live in an undecided country.   I'm pretty shure you could do this voting again and again, sometimes the one would win sometimes the other would win and you would gain security neither by repeating voting several times.

In soocer this would be exciting - if you have two teams almost equal.

Interesting how the rest of europe changed with the brexit vote. Here in germany those who said whe have to leave the EU became much quiter. Not only England but all EU-oposers in other countries got in some kind of 'wait and see' mode with the british vote. And all those experts knowing exactly what will happen when leaving the EU are suddenly immersed. No one wants to raise his voice now as England will give the proof, the example if those are right who made calculations that's much better without the EU.

Did you notice that? How all those experts and prophets became quite by that day the british people voted. How all the auguries immediatly stopped in media?  That they suddenly became afraid to make any further predictions? Even here in the forums. Nobody wants to discuss anymore about if leaving the EU is good or bad for a country. All are waiting how England will do.

But then - if they were so secure about what will happen before the british people voted and now they are quite - what does this mean?

[APSMS 1,893]

11 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The question is whether you think people will be happier if 51% can dictate their will to the other 49%. 

And would it work in the United States? Some of the problems you mention with the current system would immediately return if this method was transplanted to the US. The coastal states have generally more people living in them, while the states in the center are almost devoid of people. The Coastal states also tend to be a bit more on the liberal side on a lot of issues. So in a referendum, they would get the majority in terms of population. But do they have the majority in terms of states? Well, maybe but usually barely, because about half of the states are located in the center and they tend to be a lot more conservative on a lot of issues. In other words, a minority of people has an immediate disproportionate say in the elections. 

At the same time, if you remove this need for a majority of states to agree to it as well, it will mean that policies are made in in the coastal states and they get to dictate policy to a majority of states and most of the US landmass. Fair? Not exactly. 

This type of direct democracy in Switzerland works is because Switzerland is a very homogeneous society. Switzerland is for the Swiss and they have worked tirelessly to keep it that way. That does mean that the extremes of their political spectrum are much closer together, especially compared to the United States. So sure, if the Swiss liberals lose a referendum to the Swiss conservatives, they aren't happy but they will immediately get over it, because they aren't arch enemies yet. See what happens in the US if the liberals or the conservatives lose from each other. Each side throws a fit, accuses the other side of all kinds of nasty nonsense and each side further entrenches itself. Their mindset becomes more and more absolute. Now imagine a system that consistently is going to emphasize the differences between conservatives and liberals? In 10 years political polarization will be so extreme the country would tear itself apart. 

And then we aren't even talking yet about how such system would further marginalize minority groups exactly because minority groups don't have much say in a direct democracy because they are a minority. Or how it would open up new avenues for big business to corrupt the political system. 

So yeah, there are quite some issues to consider before you transplant a system. Or better put, just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in other places as well. 

Not to get into particulars but this already happens. When was the last time you heard anything about the 40% of Republicans Western Conservatives that live in California in a national election? You haven't.

Why?

Because the 60% dominates, and therefore Democrats have won California's electoral votes for the last, what, 60 years (?) pretty reliably (I'm sure there's an exception somewhere).

What it lets happen is states like North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio determine the election. Now don't get me wrong, they have serious issues that need addressing, and fixing those issues will probably benefit the country, but as a Californian, I resent the fact that despite being the biggest state we have been essentially ignored because of the electoral college.

Quite frankly, I am part of a minority group. I would rather we get consensus on how to address the rights of minorities rather than create laws to "help" them that ends up stripping the powers of the majorities. How is this democracy, or republicanism, if the majority of the eligible voters (I mean all, not just the registered) can be safely ignored because the "rights" of the minorities need protecting?

I know there are faults in the system, and I'm not saying it would be easy. A better system would be like how Congress was set up to address the needs of large, populous states and the requirements to give smaller states a voice as well. At the very least a direct voting system would give everyone a voice. Right now the election of 310 million people is being decided by the needs of what, 100 million? And of the 45 million that vote (in those states), the 23 million that pick the winning president? How is that fair, democratic, or rule by will of the people?

I am not part of the majority, but I live in a state that is part of the majority (in terms of population, GDP, Crop production, etc.). How does it make sense that you can still win the popular vote in America, yet lose the presidency in a national election? (It's not likely, sure, but totally, and entirely possible with no stretching of the math.)

[Jasoncw 11,946]

I think the spirit of that is correct, that finding a more broadly agreeable common ground would be better, but I think in practice it wouldn't work like that.

Issues which already have a good common ground consensus are issues that are not fought over much to begin with for that very reason. 

The headline issues are the ones that have more irreconcilable positions. And in those situations, in democracy it will almost always be close to a 50% split because the two sides will compromise, but will do so as little as possible while still thinking they can win. Obviously it's more complicated than this but theoretically each group will have a starting point and they will modify as much as needed to win but as little as possible to preserve their original goals. 

 

Brexit is a bit different because from my understanding the referendum basically happened because parliament didn't want to accept the consequences of making the grown-up decision themselves. It's also more difficult to have a compromise position when it's more or less a black and white choice about being in or out of an external international organization.

Direct democracy depends on normal citizens individually developing expertise in a policy area and then voting on it, and that's not a reasonable thing to expect people to do. 

[rsc204 21,865]

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Yeah but you can't run a country or society like that. 51% vs 49% is basically an even split, picking either option will piss off a more than significant chunk of the population. Either way you will end up delegitimizing the government itself because either way it will be seen as ignoring the wishes of a significant group of people. You can't go around a country telling half the population they can go f themselves because the other half had 1% more votes in the last election. That will turn people against each other and it will turn people against the government. 

Really? Because as far as I can see (obviously I'm not there in the UK), this simply doesn't appear to have happened. Sure there were some people protesting about it in the aftermath, but those voices have mostly come to accept the inevitable after it was made clear the decision will stand. I for one feel proud that no one is trying to weasel out of democracy when the result isn't the one they wanted, because the main parties absolutely didn't want it.

2 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Uh ... elections. You know, in four years the american people can change their mind and vote for another president.

Exactly... whilst I used BREXT as an example, perhaps it was a poor one. But it was a recent occurrence which fits the narrative here. But a system where the number of states or polling areas that come out in favour of one or the other candidate, is not truly democratic. That's really my point. Because why should it matter where in the US you live when you are voting for the president of the country? I know because in the UK we have a similar system for national elections and sometimes, if you look at the votes cast for each party vs. those cast by polling area, often it skews the final results significantly. This is democracy, but a rotten one that doesn't truly represent the will of the majority.

35 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

Brexit is a bit different because from my understanding the referendum basically happened because parliament didn't want to accept the consequences of making the grown-up decision themselves. 

I don't really think that was it. People in the UK never agreed to being in Europe, we never in almost 40 years got a say in the matter. Until more and more of our laws were being passed over in favour of EU ones, most people were OK with being a part of it. But in more recent times, I think a fair rationale for the people to have their say was warranted.

In my opinion, D. Cameron used the promise of one to win an election and gain power. Then he promised the EU that he would win it comfortably. At the same time, he wanted to use the whole thing to gain a better deal in some areas with Europe. In fact, he went as far as to threaten to be on the leave side if he didn't get some candy. So the EU threw him a bone, although this was not as tasty and meaty as everyone pretended it to be. The real problem was that rather than talk to the people and state the reasons for staying or leaving, both sides decided to try and smear each other or just make stuff up to win the argument.

Quote

The best way to solve this is to find a middle ground, a compromise that will take into account the wishes of both groups but ensures that neither of the two can call themselves the 'winner' on the issue. 

"We don't do never-end-ums, we do referendums".

These were the words of the then Prime Minister after the vote. Which means, even though the margin was slim, we should accept it as the will of the people. I mean what else do you do?

• If you do nothing, 51% of the people were ignored.
• If you go ahead, 49% of the people were not ignored, but they didn't get their choice enacted.

That's the crux here, defying the will of the 51% is not the same as 49% not getting what they thought was best. I agree there are big ramifications, under usual circumstances, such votes do require a majority. You can't run the country with a 1% majority of seats in parliament for example. But I suspect, worrying it might come close, they didn't want to enact such a clause, believing if it was so close, that Remain would pip Leave at the post. This like the whole affair was a calculated gamble for Cameron that failed spectacularly.

But the point about never-end-ums is an important one. Because what else exactly do you do in this situation? Keep voting until a clear winner appears? Best of Three? Ignore the whole thing and move on? The vote was there, the people voted, the results are what they are. To use the football analogy once more, Leave may have won on penalties, but they did after all win nonetheless.

Your idea of a middle ground (specifically in the case of BREXIT) simply isn't a viable choice, there is no such thing as a middle ground here. Either we could leave the EU and rule our own country once more. Or we could stay in the EU, where we would not get to have control over such things. The EU were not going to be put in a position of negotiating with Britain, just because the vote was so close. They wanted us to stay, so they'd stay well clear in the hope we did so. They say we either take it or leave it. So where can you find the middle ground here? The UK government has no control over the EU.

There is no mandate (nor will in Brussels), under these circumstances for change. So if you never put a system in place to safeguard against such a close vote, there is only one reasonable and fair course of action. As such, someone had to win, even if it was only by one vote. The only alternative is to keep going with more votes until more of a consensus is formed. But in my mind, that's pretty much saying to the people "keep voting until you get it right". Such things would make a mockery of the referendum in the first place, which is atypical of how the EU like to get their way. They've done this before, not accepting the vote unless it's the answer they want. In other cases, ignoring the answers they didn't want, renaming the same thing and doing it anyway, this time refusing to allow a vote in the matter. I agree it's not perfect what happened, but by Joe, at least there is some integrity in the process. Perhaps that's why so many Brits don't want to be part of the EU, the difference of how we handle such things with grace and dignity is in stark contrast. Note I'm referring to the institution the EU, not the peoples that make up the continent here.

I'm getting off-topic here obviously, sorry. But as was stated, in the case of a presidential election, I simply don't think such small majorities should be a problem. I dunno, if the vote isn't by a clear 10%, maybe you have another election in 2 years instead of 4? But that wouldn't work, it takes you guys more than 2 years to get to the point of one... but I'm sure you get the idea.

[matias93 7,535]

In any case, all of those problems with 51 vs. 49 percent can be relatively solved just changing electoral rules. Eliminating 'winner takes all' or plurality rules, and replacing it by proportional representation allows for more than two funcional parties in the legislative body, thus making viable for smaller groups to be represented, and forcing majorities (or their dirigents, in strict sense) to negotiate with minorities to govern (particularly on parlamentary regimes.

Also, when voting by only choosing one option, the system loses all information about the intensity of voters' preferences, and forces oppositional methods of campaigning and governing. Voting methods that allow the voters to show what they prefer the most and the less can give opportunities to middle ground options to win (for example, half of us hate green and love purple, and the other half loves green and hates purple, but full 68% considers yellow as acceptable). Now Maine is proposing to change their voting method to one where voters rank candidates in order of preference, so maybe the example could diffuse to another places on the US.

[Jasoncw 11,946]

7 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

But a system where the number of states or polling areas that come out in favour of one or the other candidate, is not truly democratic. That's really my point. Because why should it matter where in the US you live when you are voting for the president of the country? I know because in the UK we have a similar system for national elections and sometimes, if you look at the votes cast for each party vs. those cast by polling area, often it skews the final results significantly. This is democracy, but a rotten one that doesn't truly represent the will of the majority.

The states are (imperfectly) weighted by population. In the UK winner-take-all elections would skew things more heavily because there are multiple parties, and so small parties can get a small amount of the vote but not actually win anything (which as it is already happens there). The US though, while not officially, is, inherently and naturally and unavoidably, a two party system, so there's less distortion. The electoral college has only "gotten it wrong" once in modern history, and it was an incredibly close election with only a 0.5% difference (Bush vs. Gore, 2000) in the vote. But there have been other very close elections, 0.17% (Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960), 0.7% (Nixon vs. Humphrey, 1968) where the electoral college still had the same result as the popular vote. I don't think anyone would come up with the electoral college system if we were starting from scratch, but it's pretty much baked into the government structure. It's not possible to remove it without changing the constitution, which is very hard to do, and politicians don't want to dedicate years of their political energy to changing something that has been working. 

But there is actually an interesting way of getting around that. The individual states themselves are the ones who determine how their electoral college votes are decided (in fact for a while not all of the states even had public presidential elections at all), and a growing group of states are changing their rules so that their electoral college votes will go to whoever won the national popular vote. The rules go into effect once the group is big enough to have a majority of the electoral college, and then the US will have a defacto national popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact But don't count on this ever actually happening. 

Quote

I don't really think that was it. People in the UK never agreed to being in Europe, we never in almost 40 years got a say in the matter. Until more and more of our laws were being passed over in favour of EU ones, most people were OK with being a part of it. But in more recent times, I think a fair rationale for the people to have their say was warranted.

But you voted for your MPs who voted for these things, which is how representative democracy works. The number of specific policies, however important or unimportant, that you've directly voted for is incredibly tiny. The fact that there was a referendum at all was itself decided by parliament. I mean the EU and the UK's inclusion in it is not something that mysteriously and strangely happened somehow and that now suddenly needs direct democracy in order to be legitimate. Everyone has had their say from the beginning.  

[rsc204 21,865]

2 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

But you voted for your MPs who voted for these things, which is how representative democracy works. The number of specific policies, however important or unimportant, that you've directly voted for is incredibly tiny. The fact that there was a referendum at all was itself decided by parliament. I mean the EU and the UK's inclusion in it is not something that mysteriously and strangely happened somehow and that now suddenly needs direct democracy in order to be legitimate. Everyone has had their say from the beginning.  

Absolutely, but I think the general feeling was that population did want their say on it in a more direct manner. As much as anything, it was down to the fact that UKIP was gaining significant momentum, precisely for offering such a referendum as a key policy. After the gains by the Liberal party in the previous election, the Conservatives wanted to avoid a similar thing with UKIP. Nothing like taking your opponents policies as a more mainstream party, to gain voters who are on the fence.

The situation with the amount of control Europe wanted too was also a key factor here. For example EU-Wide single tax systems and more fiscal integration. Until very recently, the UK were able to opt-out of such power grabs by vetoing them or simply not signing up. The EU has always disliked the UK's ability to sit on the fence, they never felt that we were truly on board with their EU vision. Plans were afoot to change the rules, so we'd be forced to toe the line on such matters in future. As such, even the politicians realised that before any such loss of sovereignty at this level, they needed a proper mandate from the people. They didn't get it. If they had though, the Conservatives could always remind people that we had explicitly agreed to be part of this. The alternative could have been a huge backlash against their party in future, again strengthening the cause of UKIP, who for the first time were starting to be taken seriously.

Whilst you say we have multiple parties, until the election before last (2010), everyone knew that only two parties were seriously in the running. This had been the norm for a very long time indeed. The gains by the Liberal party were a clear indication that things were changing. Against this backdrop, I think the Conservatives saw UKIP as a real threat, but things backfired when they had to follow through with the referendum. As a result, we've ended up with what UKIP wanted all along.