Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

As for Florida, one good thing that nobody seems to be focusing on is that Florida voted to grant voting rights to Ex-Felons and to no longer bar them from voting. Seems like a win by me.

 

This may be more important than any other results in Florida long term. If not a win for Democrats, which it could well be argued it is, it certainly is a win for democracy.

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This may be more important than any other results in Florida long term. If not a win for Democrats, which it could well be argued it is, it certainly is a win for democracy.

I'm skeptical about which party it'll benefit more, however, I'm 16 so I got no idea really.

One thing I do know is that this is one of the major steps forward we needed to take. Also, side note, it was put on the ballot by a Republican-controlled government there.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Of course I see. I’m hardly some uninformed fool or partisan lemming. 

I also know myself well enough to know I wanted more. These thoughts are perfectly valid and consistent with each other. They’re my opinion. So what if your opinion is different?

I’m also disappointed Steve King kept his seat in my state and that Kim Reynolds handily beat Fred Hubbell. 

Yes, good things happened last night. Yes, bad things happened last night, too. I’m glad you’re all so excited. My enthusiasm is limited right now. Carry on...

At this point I count myself as uninformed, to the degree I don't have a clear idea of what the results mean. Nor do I think anyone else does with any certainty.

I do think that with the Democrats taking the House, and the inevitable shift in power that goes with it, the results might not be all bad... but I am hardly "excited".

No clear winner of what I consider a somewhat "toxic" election campaign might be a good thing...

 I think another very significant thing  is how well O'Rourke did in Texas. I don't know a whole lot about him but I like to think a moderate will get the Democrat ticket for 2020.

[DrP]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

what I consider a somewhat "toxic" election campaign

I agree - I hate all that. Politics should be about politics/policies, not attacking your opponent personally and casting doubts about their integrity (unless there is proper proof they are a criminal or fraud or tax dodger).    All this shouting 'lock her up' and other such appalling nonsense should shunned and ridiculed as school boy/yard tactics and considered poor play and totally unacceptable...  although it seems the American public disagree as they lap it up and vote them in.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

I agree - I hate all that. Politics should be about politics/policies, not attacking your opponent personally and casting doubts about their integrity (unless there is proper proof they are a criminal or fraud or tax dodger).    All this shouting 'lock her up' and other such appalling nonsense should shunned and ridiculed as school boy/yard tactics and considered poor play and totally unacceptable...  although it seems the American public disagree as they lap it up and vote them in.

 

Or find the alternative almost as bad...

 

[DrP]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or find the alternative almost as bad...

 

Because they listen to and believe the toxic rambling lies of the opposition campaign?

 

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, DrP said:

I agree - I hate all that. Politics should be about politics/policies, not attacking your opponent personally and casting doubts about their integrity (unless there is proper proof they are a criminal or fraud or tax dodger).  

Agreed. It's one of the downsides of a two party system. Once the two parties have been established everyone thinks they know what both parties want, so the parties can then proceed to attack their opponent and instill as much fear as possible into the voters without ever having to even touch on policy.

The last three elections, 2014, 2016, 2018 were won(and lost) in my opinion not because one side was massively more popular, but because the other side simply convinced their voters that if the enemy won it was all over.

[DrP]

37 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

but because the other side simply convinced their voters that if the enemy won it was all over.

that's my point - 'the enemy'? You are all citizens of the same country - we all share the same world....  we should be talking about solutions to problems not pointing out enemies amongst your own to demonise and vilify imo unless they are an actual threat.     It is sad...  and I mean the 'boo hoo' type of sad....  it is shameful and disheartening that the world is so backward that we find and make enemies everywhere rather than work together for the common good of mankind.

for example - If Clinton was guilty - why isn't she locked up now?   If she was innocent  -  where is the outrage at false accusations and campaign cheating (by lying about crimes committed that didn't happen)?  -  it is just normalised and expected....  which leads to the shame of the people that fall for such disgusting debating tactics imo.  

 

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Agreed. It's one of the downsides of a two party system. Once the two parties have been established everyone thinks they know what both parties want, so the parties can then proceed to attack their opponent and instill as much fear as possible into the voters without ever having to even touch on policy.

The last three elections, 2014, 2016, 2018 were won(and lost) in my opinion not because one side was massively more popular, but because the other side simply convinced their voters that if the enemy won it was all over.

1

Proportional representation

The obvious answer.

[Raider5678]

25 minutes ago, DrP said:

that's my point - 'the enemy'? You are all citizens of the same country - we all share the same world....  we should be talking about solutions to problems not pointing out enemies amongst your own to demonise and vilify imo unless they are an actual threat.     It is sad...  and I mean the 'boo hoo' type of sad....  it is shameful and disheartening that the world is so backward that we find and make enemies everywhere rather than work together for the common good of mankind.

for example - If Clinton was guilty - why isn't she locked up now?   If she was innocent  -  where is the outrage at false accusations and campaign cheating (by lying about crimes committed that didn't happen)?  -  it is just normalised and expected....  which leads to the shame of the people that fall for such disgusting debating tactics imo.  

Agreed. 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Proportional representation

The obvious answer.

That, as well as changing the voting system from First Past the Post to other voting systems, such as a Single Transferable Vote System.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That, as well as changing the voting system from First Past the Post to other voting systems, such as aSingle Transferable Vote System

 

???

[Raider5678]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

???

I guess this is relatively on topic, so I'll explain.

 

The first past the post system is where the person with the most votes wins, period.

However, this can easily result in large amounts of gerrymandering, unproportionate representation, and minority rule.

Let's assume there are 8 candidates who can run. The first gets 5%(1st) of the vote, the second gets 10%(2nd) of the vote, the third gets 12%(3rd) of the vote, then 15%(4th), 21%(5th), 19%(6th),13%(7th), 5%(8th) respectively.

In FPTP, whoever got 21% of the vote would win automatically, even if those who voted for the 6th, 7th, and 8th candidates, all would have rathered the 6th candidate over the 5th who won. So, in the next election, they strategically all vote for the 6th candidate. 

Likewise, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd voters all would have wanted the 4th candidate over the 5th. So they all strategically vote for the 4th candidate next time.

Now the vote becomes:

4th: 42%

5th: 21%

6th: 37%

Now, this time, the 4th candidate wins. 

 

In the next election, the people who voted for the 5th candidate are split. They know that 5th candidate won't win again, so they all vote for the candidate they'd rather instead. As a result, 7% of them go to the 4th candidate, and 14% go to the 6th candidate. During the next election it becomes:

4th: 49%

6th: 51%.

Seem familiar? And, over time, votes always select either candidate #4 or Candidate #6, with #5 voters being the swing voters, which are slowly becoming more partisan over time.

Now, let's say the 7th candidate decides to try to run again.

4th: 49%

6th: 39%

7th: 12%

Now the 4th Candidate wins, even if all those who voted for the 7th candidate would have rathered the 6th candidate. This is known as the spoiler effect. Additionally, a good amount of #7's campaign funding came from voters who supported the 4th candidate, knowing that it would spoil the vote and increase their chances of winning. 

This, is the state of elections we have today. A two-party system with third-party candidates typically just spoiling the vote.

A single Transferable Vote system would work much better, however, that's extremely complicated to explain in words, and I'm running short on time. I'll try to explain it better later, or you can try to look it up. Note, that the STV system applies to votes where multiple people are elected, like house or Senate positions, not positions like the president.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I guess this is relatively on topic, so I'll explain.

 

The first past the post system is where the person with the most votes wins, period.

However, this can easily result in large amounts of gerrymandering, unproportionate representation, and minority rule.

Let's assume there are 8 candidates who can run. The first gets 5%(1st) of the vote, the second gets 10%(2nd) of the vote, the third gets 12%(3rd) of the vote, then 15%(4th), 21%(5th), 19%(6th),13%(7th), 5%(8th) respectively.

In FPTP, whoever got 21% of the vote would win automatically, even if those who voted for the 6th, 7th, and 8th candidates, all would have rathered the 6th candidate over the 5th who won. So, in the next election, they strategically all vote for the 6th candidate. 

Likewise, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd voters all would have wanted the 4th candidate over the 5th. So they all strategically vote for the 4th candidate next time.

Now the vote becomes:

4th: 42%

5th: 21%

6th: 37%

Now, this time, the 4th candidate wins. 

 

In the next election, the people who voted for the 5th candidate are split. They know that 5th candidate won't win again, so they all vote for the candidate they'd rather instead. As a result, 7% of them go to the 4th candidate, and 14% go to the 6th candidate. During the next election it becomes:

4th: 49%

6th: 51%.

Seem familiar? And, over time, votes always select either candidate #4 or Candidate #6, with #5 voters being the swing voters, which are slowly becoming more partisan over time.

Now, let's say the 7th candidate decides to try to run again.

4th: 49%

6th: 39%

7th: 12%

Now the 4th Candidate wins, even if all those who voted for the 7th candidate would have rathered the 6th candidate. This is known as the spoiler effect. Additionally, a good amount of #7's campaign funding came from voters who supported the 4th candidate, knowing that it would spoil the vote and increase their chances of winning. 

This, is the state of elections we have today. A two-party system with third-party candidates typically just spoiling the vote.

A single Transferable Vote system would work much better, however, that's extremely complicated to explain in words, and I'm running short on time. I'll try to explain it better later, or you can try to look it up. Note, that the STV system applies to votes where multiple people are elected, like house or Senate positions, not positions like the president.

1

game theory is what you have;pr is what you haven't.

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

game theory is what you have;pr is what you haven't.

Game theory the youtube channel or are you insinuating something else? I mean "game theory is what you have" is used to reference the youtube channel where I'm at when someone comes up with a theory about a game, but I get the feeling that's not what you're saying.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Game theory the youtube channel or are you insinuating something else? I mean "game theory is what you have" is used to reference the youtube channel where I'm at when someone comes up with a theory about a game, but I get the feeling that's not what you're saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? You like to use sarcasm a lot and I'm not sure if this is it or not.

Basically, write it out in crayon for me. Preferably with pictures of animals too. Something simple.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Who knows...

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Who knows...

Not me.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Not me.

So why does it matter?

[J.C.MacSwell]

The advantage of the party system, where there are few parties (2-3, say) and first past the post is that the parties should be trying to target the whole populace rather than a smaller interest group.

[Raider5678]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So why does it matter?

Edited November 7, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

Democrats appeared to have had a significant advantage in voter support last night. The lack of wins in key races were a reflection of our system more so than popular support. 

Quote

 

As of Wednesday morning, Democrats had earned nearly 4 million more votes than Republicans in the national House vote.

According the 2018 House exit poll, a majority of voters who identify as independents backed Democrats (54 percent to 42 percent). Moderate voters overwhelmingly went Democratic (62 percent to 36 percent), as did women (59 percent to 40 percent) and those under 45 years of age (61 percent to 36 percent). These numbers are a far cry from those found in the 2016 House exit poll, when independents voted with Republicans (51 percent to 45 percent), moderates favored Democrats more narrowly (52 percent to 46 percent), and the margins favoring Democrats among women and voters under age 45 were 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent) — not 19 and 25 percentage points, respectively. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/415494-make-no-mistake-democrats-are-rising

 

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Is it just me or is it looking like they might pick up 4 in total?

Unsure. Maybe. I posted atvaround 6am this morning. Have been working since and not online following results news. 

[StringJunky]

Jeff Sessions has just resigned at Trump's request.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Jeff Sessions has just resigned at Trump's request.

Sessions won't be the last between now and New Years. Nielsen, Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, Rosenstein, and mnuchin are all on the chopping block. I will be surprised if most aren't gone shortly.