Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!
Shawn K. Quinn: above the law
They all above the law, you cuck.
Inciting riots
Reddit.
I didn't really want to vote for Hillary, but it was the best choice
Why be such intellectual coward? You could've writtens in anybody you wanted. Don't come crying to here with your lies, you dishonest piece of shit.
turning Texas blue,
Bangin' Crip, seems.
we
I think you mean 'xe'.
"Grab 'Em By The Pussy"
You must no be rich or famous.
What other conclusion were we supposed to draw?
If you are in Texas, draw Muhammad. -- @abditum
Boyce, I know you don't like me, but someone is using your name, pretending to be you on CypherPunks list. Sorry for being late, but this message was tagged as spam and just read it now. Take care. - c. On Nov 9, 2016 2:32 PM, "Griffin Boyce" <datajanitor@sigaint.org> wrote:
Shawn K. Quinn: above the law
They all above the law, you cuck.
Inciting riots
Reddit.
I didn't really want to vote for Hillary, but it was the best choice
Why be such intellectual coward? You could've writtens in anybody you wanted.
Don't come crying to here with your lies, you dishonest piece of shit.
turning Texas blue,
Bangin' Crip, seems.
we
I think you mean 'xe'.
"Grab 'Em By The Pussy"
You must no be rich or famous.
What other conclusion were we supposed to draw?
If you are in Texas, draw Muhammad.
-- @abditum
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 17:32 +0000, Griffin Boyce wrote:
Why be such intellectual coward? You could've writtens in anybody you wanted.
Let me explain to you how presidential voting works (in every state but Maine and Nebraska, anyway): 1. The candidate with the most votes takes all the electoral votes in that state. 2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to win. So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump. If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because Trump would not have won. I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> 2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to win. This is called "Duverger's Law". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law"In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority systemand proportional representation tend to favor multipartism."[1][2] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle.Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.While a principle of political science, in practice most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India have consistently had multiparty parliaments.[3][4] Eric Dickson and Ken Scheve argue that there is a counter force to Duverger's Law, that on the national level a plurality system encourages two parties, but in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.[5] "So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump. If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because Trump would not have won." This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as myself. It means that we are going to be consistently influencing elections, probably from here on in. And that means that the two major candidates will have to start listening to libertarians.
I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is. My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional office influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the election. If there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%, and 5% of the vote, the minority candidate gets an office elsewhere, and can neutralize part of the vote of the majority-vote candidate, if he wishes.If the majority-vote candidate is voting on something that is uncontroversial, agreed with by the minority-vote candidates, his vote will get an influence of 100%. If the minority candidates choose the opposite position, the net result will be 50-45-5=0: There will be no net vote from that state.
Jim Bell
This "Law" assumes there are two distinct parties with two different ideologies. There aren't, There are two right wing (traditionalist for a start) factions of a one party (American exceptionalist ideology) state. Besides: 231,556,622 eligible voters 46.9% didn't vote 25.6% voted Clinton 25.5% voted Trump Nobody is president. Simple, elegant. A workaround for "Duverger's Law" whoeverthefuck Duverger is/was. Rr On 11/09/2016 01:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> 2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to win.
This is called "Duverger's Law". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law "In political science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science>, *Duverger's law* holds that plurality-rule <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system> elections (such as /first past the post <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post>/) structured within single-member districts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_districts> tend to favor a two-party system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system> and that "the double ballot majority system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system>and proportional representation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> tend to favor multipartism."^[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-1> ^[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-2> The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger>, a French sociologist <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist> who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist> began calling the effect a "law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law>" or principle. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system> and an electoral system: a proportional representation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system. While a principle of political science, in practice most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India have consistently had multiparty parliaments.^[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-3> ^[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-4> Eric Dickson and Ken Scheve argue that there is a counter force to Duverger's Law, that on the national level a plurality system encourages two parties, but in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.^[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-5>
"So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump. If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because Trump would not have won."
This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as myself. It means that we are going to be consistently influencing elections, probably from here on in. And that means that the two major candidates will have to start listening to libertarians.
I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is.
My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional office influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the election. If there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%, and 5% of the vote, the minority candidate gets an office elsewhere, and can neutralize part of the vote of the majority-vote candidate, if he wishes. If the majority-vote candidate is voting on something that is uncontroversial, agreed with by the minority-vote candidates, his vote will get an influence of 100%. If the minority candidates choose the opposite position, the net result will be 50-45-5=0: There will be no net vote from that state.
Jim Bell
participants (5)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
Griffin Boyce -
jim bell -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn