Trump just won

[skepticalbip]

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

Each and every vote is what makes the total. Just as your one vote is what contributed to give your candidate over 60,000,000 votes. If each and every one of those more than 60,000,000 voters had your view of elections then that total could have well been zero.

It's a pretty safe bet there will be over 100,000,000+ votes based on observable experience. And you only control one vote. If you have managed to convince yourself your voting or not voting causes hundreds of millions of other people to vote or not vote you may be mistaken.

You obviously didn't actually read what I posted or didn't understand it.
Or is it that you just like to throw out strawmen?

 

[dismal]

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

Each and every vote is what makes the total. Just as your one vote is what contributed to give your candidate over 60,000,000 votes. If each and every one of those more than 60,000,000 voters had your view of elections then that total could have well been zero.

It's a pretty safe bet there will be over 100,000,000+ votes based on observable experience. And you only control one vote. If you have managed to convince yourself your voting or not voting causes hundreds of millions of other people to vote or not vote you may be mistaken.

You obviously didn't actually read what I posted or didn't understand it.
Or is it that you just like to throw out strawmen?

So you agree that a reasonable person would know it's a certainty based on experience tens of millions of people will vote?

Then what was your point?

 

[skepticalbip]

So you agree that a reasonable person would know it's a certainty based on experience tens of millions of people will vote?

Then what was your point?

If you had been following the thread, you would have noticed that it was about whether it made any sense to vote for third party candidates. The fact that the Libertarian party got over four million votes (each one of those individual votes is what brought them to that total) means that the major parties, if they want to attract those voters, need to tailor their next platform to include those voters' concerns as well as their base.

If those voting third party had voted for one of the major candidates, then the major parties would have gotten no feedback (real feedback in votes) that there were a lot of potential voters that they may need next time that had problems with their platform. It may even be a disagreement that could easily be resolved by including another plank or minor change in their platform.

ETA:
Other than the actual topic - The thinking that a vote doesn't count, so no real reason to vote because there are others that are going to vote, is a problem because if enough people think that way then in a close election a real ass that has an organized voter base can easily defeat a much better candidate with a voter base that thinks this way so a significant number of them doesn't bother to vote and instead goes fishing or pursues some other hobby.

 

[Ford]

If you had been following the thread, you would have noticed that it was about whether it made any sense to vote for third party candidates.

And it doesn't, unless that third party is able to garner not just a few million fringe voters, but tens or hundreds of millions of swing voters who have become disillusioned with the two major parties.

The path for a third party is not to court the wings, but the middle. No third party has done so in recent memory. Libertarians think they're the middle, but they're nothing of the sort. Same with the Greens.

 

[skepticalbip]

And it doesn't,.

It does.

Like you, I didn't bother to read and respond to the rest of the post.

 

[Ford]

And it doesn't,.

It does.

Like you, I didn't bother to read and respond to the rest of the post.

I'm responding to the view from 30 thousand feet. The LP is not the party of the middle..

 

[Juma]

I would have understood your point if the candidates was somehow in the same league.

But not when one of the candidates is Trump....

 

[skepticalbip]

It does.

Like you, I didn't bother to read and respond to the rest of the post.

I'm responding.

but not to anything I posted.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That looks like some rather odd impression of how political parties evaluate the vote to determine how they need to shape their platform for the next election.

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

My one vote won't make them say "aw fuckit", that wasn't my argument. But when the margin of the Green and Libertarian parties separately are greater than the margin between the Republican and Democratic parties, they notice that sort of thing. That is why my vote counts, it adds to the margin.

 

[Ford]

I posted.

I, too, can

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you can peaches?

 

[Ford]

Do you can peaches?

Toucan Sam.

 

[bilby]

 

[Juma]

That is why my vote counts, it adds to the margin.

WTF. Nobody has any use of that margin when the Trumpf is president.

Nobody fucking cares about that margin when Trump is the president.

You can dream of how good it is to have contributed to that margin when that margin de facto made the total clown the president.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

No, he is giving no support to either Trump or Clinton. He is saying "fuck you" to both. Voting for either would have been giving support to one of them.

ETA:
Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word, "support".

Saying fuck you to both wasn't an option. One of those two would win regardless of his choice. They were the only choices.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

No, I was saying no to both of them.

So you want to play game theory. It does salve the conscience of one who knows he was supporting someone bad, but let us examine game theory.

You are playing a short game. I am playing a long game. And every good strategist knows that sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

You are focused on the outcome of this, the most immediate election, as if that was the whole of the conflict. What you forget is that your vote does NOT come with a label saying "I don't actually like or support you, I'm actually just voting against the other guy." Your vote says to the one who receives it "I approve of what you are doing, don't change." After many elections in a row of voting against the other guy, you now are faced with one of the worst candidates your party ever put forward and you feel you must still support that candidate. You're like a $2 hooker wondering why the guys don't respect her.

The major parties do actually look at the 3rd party votes. They look at them with an eye of "those actually belong to us, why weren't they delivered to us." If they feel the problem is big enough, they start making speeches in support of the third party issues. If that isn't enough they insert an ignored platform plank. If that still doesn't work, they shift a little in the direction needed to claim the vote.

By not delivering the vote, I am telling the party I am unsatisfied, much like a stay at home voter. By delivering it to someone else, I am telling them what they need to do in order to get my vote. I am telling them that if they want my vote they have to shift towards me.

Your strategy means your party will continue to get worse and worse because you will still support them over the hated other. At least you keep getting your short term victories as you get screwed in the long run by candidates you detest. My strategy means that there will be some short term discomfort until one or the other party finally figures out how to win my vote.

That doesn't mean I'm satisfied with your second choice candidate. It means I'm not satisfied with your first or second choice candidates and am playing the LONG GAME to change it.

Be happy with your short term victory of your second choice candidate. By always delivering the vote, whether earned or not, this is what you get, this is what you asked for, this is what you deserve.

You're assuming that election results is the only way of gathering information for parties. I'd argue there are many better ways. It's always unclear what an election result really measures. It's an extremely coarse metric.

I think you're wrong. I think if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you just don't matter to them. If you live in an area that doesn't I think the assumption is that these people don't care about politics and they put their efforts elsewhere.

I don't think it's a long game. I think it's a no game. You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

 

[skepticalbip]

You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

I don't think you understand how governance in the US works. The President is probably one of the least important decisions a voter makes on the ballot. It is just that the news media focus on the President because it is easier to cover. Plus they can make it emotional so that they can attract viewers and boost their ratings.

For the average American, the most important decisions on the ballot are the ones that really effect their daily life like the Sheriff, Mayor, city council, local initiatives, zoning, local tax measures, etc. because these are the decisions that determine everything such as water, sewage, garbage collection, law enforcement, libraries, schools, etc. The next in importance is the State legislators, governor, amendments to the State Constitution, etc. because these effect State laws and State law enforcement, industrial development, roads and highways, etc. The next in importance is the US House and Senate seats because these are the people that make the national laws. Finally, the President who's authority is as executive who's main function is to oversee the agencies that enforce the laws enacted by the House and Senate. The President does not make laws.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

I don't think you understand how governance in the US works. The President is probably one of the least important decisions a voter makes on the ballot. It is just that the news media focus on the President because it is easier to cover. Plus they can make it emotional so that they can attract viewers and boost their ratings.

For the average American, the most important decisions on the ballot are the ones that really effect their daily life like the Sheriff, Mayor, city council, local initiatives, zoning, local tax measures, etc. because these are the decisions that determine everything such as water, sewage, garbage collection, law enforcement, libraries, schools, etc. The next in importance is the State legislators, governor, amendments to the State Constitution, etc. because these effect State laws and State law enforcement, industrial development, roads and highways, etc. The next in importance is the US House and Senate seats because these are the people that make the national laws. Finally, the President who's authority is as executive who's main function is to oversee the agencies that enforce the laws enacted by the House and Senate. The President does not make laws.

I know all this. I was talking about the presidential election.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're assuming that election results is the only way of gathering information for parties. I'd argue there are many better ways. It's always unclear what an election result really measures. It's an extremely coarse metric.

I think you're wrong. I think if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you just don't matter to them. If you live in an area that doesn't I think the assumption is that these people don't care about politics and they put their efforts elsewhere.

I don't think it's a long game. I think it's a no game. You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

And that is why the two candidates were Hillary and Trump. You kept saying "I approve of what you are doing, don't change" over and over again. Trump is as much a victory for your short-term view as Hillary would have been. Either way, you won in the short term. Hillary or Trump, they are both the result of a limited game theory that doesn't go any farther than this the most immediate election.

It is quite clear what elections measure. They measure "you have earned my vote" or "you have not earned my vote." That is the one thing the parties really do pay attention to. But since you think it is a "no game" then there's no reason for you to lecture us on and on about game theory. You have no game, and your second choice won. Congratulations on your victory, enjoy your President Trump.

 

[KeepTalking]

You're assuming that election results is the only way of gathering information for parties. I'd argue there are many better ways. It's always unclear what an election result really measures. It's an extremely coarse metric.

I think you're wrong. I think if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you just don't matter to them. If you live in an area that doesn't I think the assumption is that these people don't care about politics and they put their efforts elsewhere.

I don't think it's a long game. I think it's a no game. You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

And that is why the two candidates were Hillary and Trump. You kept saying "I approve of what you are doing, don't change" over and over again. Trump is as much a victory for your short-term view as Hillary would have been. Either way, you won in the short term. Hillary or Trump, they are both the result of a limited game theory that doesn't go any farther than this the most immediate election.

It is quite clear what elections measure. They measure "you have earned my vote" or "you have not earned my vote." That is the one thing the parties really do pay attention to. But since you think it is a "no game" then there's no reason for you to lecture us on and on about game theory. You have no game, and your second choice won. Congratulations on your victory, enjoy your President Trump.

All well and good, except for the fact that Trump is not DrZ's president. In fact, DrZ does not have a president at all, but his PM is Stefan Lofven.