Return to “Polls”

Pick the next president...

Poll ended at Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:52 am You may select 1 option

Hillary Clinton
Total votes: 8 (32%)
Donald J. Trump
Total votes: 14 (56%)
Gary Johnson
Total votes: 2 (8%)
Jill Stein
Total votes: 1 (4%)
Total votes: 25
Post

Re: VOTE

#136
Silverware wrote:Let's say you hate candidate A, and dislike candidate B, so want to vote for third party candidate C.

A gets 10 votes,
B gets 9 votes,
C gets 1 vote.

That one vote of yours is worse than wasted, it's the equivalent of voting FOR candidate A.
This is the First Past the Post system that America uses, and is horrible.
No, it's not.

Let's imagine if you don't vote, the results look like this:

A - 5
B - 3
C - 1

If you vote A, the results look like this:

A - 6
B - 3
C - 1

If you vote B, the results look like this:

A - 5
B - 4
C -1

If you vote C, the results look like this:

A - 5
B - 3
C - 2

Notice how all those sets of the numbers are different?

Voting for a third-party is NOT the same as voting for someone you dislike. The gap between A and B is smaller if you vote for B than if you vote for neither, but if you vote for neither it is still smaller than if you vote for A.

Furthermore:
DigitalDuck wrote:When both candidates that have any chance are both as terrible as they are this time around, this is the best time to think about how you are voting. Rather than be concerned about which flavour of faeces you get to eat for the next four years, maybe vote so you don't have to keep eating faeces four years from now?

Don't vote for a candidate that's the lesser of evils, because that will invite more candidates of that breed of evil next time. Vote for a candidate you actually want, and if you don't want any of them, null voting is very much an option. Sure, it might make the worse option happen this time around; but your options next time will be better for it.

A good example of this is the UK. In the last couple of elections, third-party turnout has soared - in 2015, UKIP gathered 12.7% of all votes. Despite the voting system meaning they only took 1 of the 650 seats available, the fact that even early polls showed a high number of people voting UKIP forced David Cameron to offer an EU referendum, in order to recapture those who were changing their minds.

Those voting UKIP changed Conservative policies. In the same way, those voting SNP changed Labour policies. You don't have to vote for the lesser of evils; you can vote to make the next election's offerings better.
This myth of "a vote for C is a vote for A" needs to die. It's simply not true, and it's the primary reason you have crap candidates.

Yes, the voting system can be improved. It's unlikely when you keep voting to keep two parties in power, because neither of those parties will want to change the voting system while it stifles competition.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: VOTE

#137
The important thing is that if you are able to vote, do it.

This goes for all peoples of all countries that still let them do this when it comes time for their own elections.

Low voter turnouts sends a message to the people in charge, that regardless of what they do most people don't care enough to bring in someone different.

It's easy to grumble and moan that regardless of what we do, or who we vote for, nothing actually changes and it's a rigged system. Perhaps on some level this may be true. However, just accepting this and not doing anything will only make it worse.
My Signature
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#138
Taiya have good advice through her fortune cookies. :ghost:

Code: Select all

[21:40:43] <Detritus> Taiya, break a fortune cookie for the future of the United States
[21:40:46] <Taiya> The fortune cookie says: Don't worry about things in the past; you cannot do anything about them. Don't worry about things that are happening now, make the best of a bad situation. Don't worry about things in the future; they may never happen.
I am Groot.
Please don't take my advice. You will wind up in jail if you do.
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours: Image :problem:
:ugeek:
Image
Post

Re: VOTE

#139
Silverware wrote:Dumb math
Yes, because a voter has 1/20 of the votes in his country which just happened to be the difference between A and B, right? :P
That idea only works if:
the total amount of third party voters that would have voted for B
MINUS the total total amount of third party voters that would have voted for A
is LARGER than the difference in voters between A and B
but each of the third parties still SMALLER than every other party.

I doubt that is often, if ever, the case.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: VOTE

#140
Dinosawer wrote:
Silverware wrote:Dumb math
Yes, because a voter has 1/20 of the votes in his country which just happened to be the difference between A and B, right? :P
That idea only works if:
the total amount of third party voters that would have voted for B
MINUS the total total amount of third party voters that would have voted for A
is LARGER than the difference in voters between A and B
but each of the third parties still SMALLER than every other party.

I doubt that is often, if ever, the case.
It also allows people to vote for the leaders they actually want without fear of a wasted vote when someone else is likely to win, but whatever.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron