Wang Chung Wu Tang Clan Thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,966
32,650
1,743
oklahoma city
You responded to eeny meeny miney mo with ranked voting. How does ranked voting help with voters that make uneducated guesses?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yes, I have an amazing ability to respond to Rx's posts with my posts before he even writes them.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,966
32,650
1,743
oklahoma city
That's a great way of expressing my thoughts...I think they are "low info" because a large portion of what they know seems to be BS.
It is sort of like 90% of drivers believing they are better than the average driver. All of us think it is the other guy consuming and believing BS while we are the ones appropriately analyzing good sources.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,657
51,285
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
The stupidity of particular voters has absolutely no relevance to my post as the discussion was about principled voters, not stupid voters. There is no "burden of proof" for me to fix your stupid sideswipe of a post. And, you get the last word if you want it because I will not chase you down another one of your rabbit holes.
If stupid voters outnumber the principled ones, like your 90% of drivers think they're better than average example, then how will a new scheme fix the stupid?

And, yes, there is a burden of proof, unless you just want to evade it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,966
32,650
1,743
oklahoma city
If stupid voters outnumber the principled ones, like your 90% of drivers think they're better than average example, then how will a new scheme fix the stupid?

And, yes, there is a burden of proof, unless you just want to evade it.
The subject that I was talking about was principled voters. You brought up a new subject, stupid voters. I do not have a burden of proof about something new that you brought up. The thing I was talking about was the difficulty faced by principled voters in our "lesser of two evils" system. I said nothing about stupid voters therefore have to prove nothing about stupid voters because that isn't even the problem I was addressing.

If you are a principled poster, you will understand this and apologize for inappropriately goading me, unless you just want to evade it with some other errant point.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,502
5,323
1,743
Katy, TX
It is sort of like 90% of drivers believing they are better than the average driver. All of us think it is the other guy consuming and believing BS while we are the ones appropriately analyzing good sources.
With the friend I have in mind...his sources are complete BS most of the time.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,657
51,285
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
The subject that I was talking about was principled voters. You brought up a new subject, stupid voters. I do not have a burden of proof about something new that you brought up. The thing I was talking about was the difficulty faced by principled voters in our "lesser of two evils" system. I said nothing about stupid voters therefore have to prove nothing about stupid voters because that isn't even the problem I was addressing.

If you are a principled poster, you will understand this and apologize for inappropriately goading me, unless you just want to evade it with some other errant point.
5 principled voters get to rank the evils 1-5.
95 voters get to go eeny meeny miney moe.

Yes, by jove, that's better. Why couldn't I see the brilliance of it before! Please forgive me for goading you and not realizing the brilliance of your principled scheme!

The problem you were addressing was getting candidates with little support, like the losers you've backed in the last two elections, more support. If they fall #4 or #5 (or 12 like Johnson) with the 95 then Johnson and Yang are still losers.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,267
16,525
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
His idea of ranked-choice voting would solve that problem but yea, being that it helps the voter/ hurts the party it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
He’s certainly forwarding it but it’s not his idea this site is where his policy is from.
https://www.rankedchoicevoting.org/where_used

I’m not going to argue whether it would be beneficial to a 3rd party or not, I don’t know. What I think is that having a different way of doing vote count won’t change whether or not people are no/low/avg/tmi voters. People tend to vote along somewhat ideology lines, on the items that are of importance to them and usually based on the soundbite of the day. I’ve looked at rcv several times, this was, as I mentioned, another area of divergence with Yang for me. I simply disagree with the premise and more specifically I disagree with this approach. Theoretically in a 6 person race the person who finished 4th could end up winning the election. That’s the primary reason we got Schwarzenegger as governor, it wasn’t exactly rcv but it was a modified form that became one of the biggest jokes in Ca politics. If it were reimagined I might reconsider, I used to be as anti term limits as I am anti socialism, I’ve made a complete 180 on that. To me that’s the better way of improving the candidate pool that combined with implementing almost draconian rules regarding lobbying would separate those who want to rule (and all the benefits associated) from those who want to govern for a period of time and then, as the founding fathers said, return to their farms.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,966
32,650
1,743
oklahoma city
He’s certainly forwarding it but it’s not his idea this site is where his policy is from.
https://www.rankedchoicevoting.org/where_used

I’m not going to argue whether it would be beneficial to a 3rd party or not, I don’t know. What I think is that having a different way of doing vote count won’t change whether or not people are no/low/avg/tmi voters. People tend to vote along somewhat ideology lines, on the items that are of importance to them and usually based on the soundbite of the day. I’ve looked at rcv several times, this was, as I mentioned, another area of divergence with Yang for me. I simply disagree with the premise and more specifically I disagree with this approach. Theoretically in a 6 person race the person who finished 4th could end up winning the election. That’s the primary reason we got Schwarzenegger as governor, it wasn’t exactly rcv but it was a modified form that became one of the biggest jokes in Ca politics. If it were reimagined I might reconsider, I used to be as anti term limits as I am anti socialism, I’ve made a complete 180 on that. To me that’s the better way of improving the candidate pool that combined with implementing almost draconian rules regarding lobbying would separate those who want to rule from those who want to govern.
I’ve been ranked choice voting in Australia. I didn’t mean his idea as in he created it but he was the only candidate specifically running on it.
Given our system I think a 4th place person getting the win for president would be a theoretical risk more than a common issue. And, I think is a far smaller risk than what has happened where Clinton won due to Perot, and Bush won due to Nader. No system is perfect, but I think it is less bad and is more likely to give voters preference.

Curtailing lobbying without running afoul of free speech seems to be a difficult problem.
 
Feb 7, 2007
17,543
24,448
1,743
Tulsa, OK
To be honest, I'm not sure what to think of the idea of ranked voting. Part of me thinks it might indirectly benefit 3rd parties as Republican voters would rank the Dem last and Democrat voters would rank the Rep last, meaning the 3rd parties would get a lot of 2nd and 3rd place votes. For that reason alone I would be almost tempted to give it a try.
I know if we had the option in 2016 I would have ranked them:
1. Johnson
2. Trump
3. Clinton
Trump would have still won the state, but second place may have been up for grabs.

On the other hand, I also can see where it might benefit name recognition/who spends the most even more than our current system does as the mindless zombies will probably use name rec for their second choice, even if they manage to avoid that pitfall with their 1st choice. And that I would not like.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,267
16,525
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
To be honest, I'm not sure what to think of the idea of ranked voting. Part of me thinks it might indirectly benefit 3rd parties as Republican voters would rank the Dem last and Democrat voters would rank the Rep last, meaning the 3rd parties would get a lot of 2nd and 3rd place votes. For that reason alone I would be almost tempted to give it a try.
I know if we had the option in 2016 I would have ranked them:
1. Johnson
2. Trump
3. Clinton
Trump would have still won the state, but second place may have been up for grabs.

On the other hand, I also can see where it might benefit name recognition/who spends the most even more than our current system does as the mindless zombies will probably use name rec for their second choice, even if they manage to avoid that pitfall with their 1st choice. And that I would not like.
Unfortunately that’s not really how it works, in some states there were 6 or more potus candidates, if you only listed 3 it might work, that’s why I said if it were reimagined I’d reconsider. Take a look at the link I included it explains how it’s being presented in complete detail.