|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 1, 2019 2:24:28 GMT
Here is a thread where members can discuss the viability of the U.S. Electoral College to other voting systems. Relevant discussion points include (but not necessarily limited to): - Strength/weaknesses of each voting system
- The potential roadblocks transitioning between voting systems [legislative/Constitutional actions, cost/time restrictions, result integrity, education]
- Effectiveness [theoretical / practical]
- Voter turnout speculation
- 3rd party relevance [local, state, national]
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 1, 2019 23:51:31 GMT
Before comparing and contrasting the various voting systems, a discussion regarding voting pitfalls is likely warranted. Some of pitfalls include (but not limited to): - Entrenched two-party establishment
- Gerrymandering
- Disparate voting eligibility requirements between states [felon voting rights]
- Single-issue politics
- Disproportional vote representation
- Strategic voting
- Voter interest/participation/disenfranchisement
- Vote integrity [voter fraud, election fraud]
- Provisional [including overseas] ballots
- Social media manipulation/misinformation
- Polling station availability
- Voting method criteria [result criteria (absolute/relative), ballot-counting, strategy, ballot format]
- Campaign contributions [individual, corporate, PAC, super-PAC, other entities]
- Campaign contribution disclosure
- Johnson Amendment
- Formal debate eligibility requirements
- Tie-breaking processes
- Voting procedure modification roadblocks [local, state, federal]
- Data management [archive-ability, traceability, collection]
Explain the detriments (and any arguable benefits) of each pitfall. Which pitfalls can be minimized/eliminated with a voting system? What are the theoretical/practical limitations?
Providing sources whenever possible is encouraged and appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 2, 2019 0:44:22 GMT
Is Devoid a bot?
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Sept 2, 2019 1:46:01 GMT
No, he's just the complete opposite of you; he's talking intelligently about things no else cares about... |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 2, 2019 3:19:38 GMT
No, he's just the complete opposite of you; he's talking intelligently about things no else cares about... Thanks for the compliment, evileeyore. I really appre--Hey! 
Well, as for the part about things no[body] else cares about, some people seem to speak about them incessantly. Strange, isn't it.
Kzach, if you are asking whether I am a bot now after all the years on the old forum... Perhaps the concept of conducting respectful, thoughtful [civil] discourse is beyond understanding in various social mediums of today? How very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 3, 2019 1:18:45 GMT
No, he's just the complete opposite of you; he's talking intelligently about things no else cares about... Well, as for the part about things no[body] else cares about, some people seem to speak about them incessantly. Strange, isn't it.
You're attacking something I didn't say. I never said nobody cared about the subject matter. I only made a joke about you being a robot because you put wayyyyy too much effort on a subject people talk about on their phone when they are taking a dump or are too lazy to fap. This is why no one took the time to answer your posts. Your skin is just too thin. Pffft. Too many people confuse the veneer of civility with actual civility. There are plenty of conversation that aren't civil even if they might look like they are. It is all meaningless bullshit... if a person doesn't have a fragile ego. What is important in the discourse is the quality of arguments. And that is usually poor. Just look at Ovi. He confused voting by electors and states choosing electors. We both saw his error. But you grovelled to spare his feelings. If he thinks he can voice an opinion in public, he should be able to be humiliated in public for being a moron. That is how public discourse works. Whether we like it (it shouldn't work like that!!!) or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 3, 2019 4:04:00 GMT
Well, as for the part about things no[body] else cares about, some people seem to speak about them incessantly. Strange, isn't it.
You're attacking something I didn't say. I never said nobody cared about the subject matter. I only made a joke about you being a robot because you put wayyyyy too much effort on a subject people talk about on their phone when they are taking a dump or are too lazy to fap. This is why no one took the time to answer your posts. Your skin is just too thin. I don't recall referring about you specifically in the quote you have provided above. I had addressed him directly in the previous sentence with a wink. Unfortunately, the absence of eye contact, vocal tonality, and body language can lead to misunderstandings and potentially increasing lack of empathy when posting. My response to you in the following line was about you asking if I was a bot. If you were sincere in your question, I likely wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise. If you weren't sincere, the following question is rhetorical and ironic due to the absence of eye contact, vocal tonality, and body language.
It is true that I put forth more effort, thought, and respect in my responses than others. I prefer quality over quantity when I post. Others are free to respond in whatever fashion they desire. If they choose not to engage, that is also their prerogative.
Now whether or not I put too much effort on a subject is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, of course. Pffft. Too many people confuse the veneer of civility with actual civility. There are plenty of conversation that aren't civil even if they might look like they are. It is all meaningless bullshit... if a person doesn't have a fragile ego. What is important in the discourse is the quality of arguments. And that is usually poor. Just look at Ovi. He confused voting by electors and states choosing electors. We both saw his error. But you grovelled to spare his feelings. If he thinks he can voice an opinion in public, he should be able to be humiliated in public for being a moron. That is how public discourse works. Whether we like it (it shouldn't work like that!!!) or not. True, there are people who feign civility. There are others that are genuinely respectful in their discourse and want to better understand others. I ask for clarification to better understand others before seeking to be understood. The numerous questions that I pose are to better understand the perspective of others. This can result in an improved quality of arguments. Perceived personal attacks can distract us learning about the world, ourselves, and one another. We feel the urge to attack one another in an effort suppress feelings of self-inadequacy. Thin skin indeed. 
Ovi responded to my original post with his thoughts and I responded to his response with my own thoughts regarding my original post. The exchanges between Ovi and myself on the subject are not to attack one another, but to better understand the greater implications of the ruling. How does calling someone a moron improve the experience?
I believe it is possible to have differing opinions and still respect them. Humiliation and shame only seems to breed spite and loathing. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 3, 2019 5:45:47 GMT
Well, as for the part about things no[body] else cares about, some people seem to speak about them incessantly. Strange, isn't it.
...a subject people talk about on their phone when they are taking a dump... No wonder you post so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 3, 2019 16:49:51 GMT
Now whether or not I put too much effort on a subject is a matter of opinion. It isn't an opinion, it is factual. You can quantify the effort someone put into a post its lenght and detail, and demonstrate too much effort was put into it by using various mesures. The number of responses to that post is such a mesure. You put too much effort in your posts. That is just terrible. You're saying you respect Nazis inspite of their opinions on race, that you respect rapists inspite of their opinions on consent, etc. Opinions have political and societal impacts. At some point you're either an idiot for voicing those opinions or part of the problem if your more than a moron who repeats what he read on the internet. If you refuse to recognize that taking away firearms works, like it did in Australia, after years of thoughts and prayers that haven't made a different, you're either an moron or want gun violence. In either case you're not a valid interlocutor, should be called out and set aside from the debate. If you do not call out these people and their opinions, and instead respect them and let them stay in the public square, you're complice, Devoid. First they came for the socialists, and I respected them. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I respected them. Then they came for the Jews, and I respected them. Then they came for me, and they did not respect me. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 3, 2019 18:48:29 GMT
Now whether or not I put too much effort on a subject is a matter of opinion. It isn't an opinion, it is factual. You can quantify the effort someone put into a post its lenght and detail, and demonstrate too much effort was put into it by using various mesures. The number of responses to that post is such a mesure. You put too much effort in your posts. Although metrics can be applied to most anything, the interpretation of the data is usually subjective.
How many guns, children, items, money, should a person have? When should abortions be disallowed? Answers vary. Finely defined consensus among the population is troublesome in many cases.
Even those that are accepted can change. What tax rates should be applied where? How many pets should an individual be allowed to possess? Blood-alcohol content for a DUI/DWAI?
In the U.S. alone there are multiple definitions of what constitutes the term 'mass shooting'. Some definitions are strictly based on another (12 inches to 1 foot), while others require scientific consensus (1 foot in England was not the same length as 1 foot in France in the past) before being accepted as definitive. Who decides which one is correct?
That is just terrible. You're saying you respect Nazis inspite of their opinions on race, that you respect rapists inspite of their opinions on consent, etc. Opinions have political and societal impacts. At some point you're either an idiot for voicing those opinions or part of the problem if your more than a moron who repeats what he read on the internet. If you refuse to recognize that taking away firearms works, like it did in Australia, after years of thoughts and prayers that haven't made a different, you're either an moron or want gun violence. In either case you're not a valid interlocutor, should be called out and set aside from the debate. If you do not call out these people and their opinions, and instead respect them and let them stay in the public square, you're complice, Devoid. First they came for the socialists, and I respected them. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I respected them. Then they came for the Jews, and I respected them. Then they came for me, and they did not respect me. Not all differing opinions are destructive. The issue is where is the threshold for the expression 'at some point.' Even when the expression 'do no harm' is used, what constitutes harm? What about situations where harm may occur regardless? Is it more harmful to the fetus to be aborted, or for it to be born without support by those who objected to its termination? Although some issues may be considered black and white, many aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 3, 2019 23:54:10 GMT
It isn't an opinion, it is factual. You can quantify the effort someone put into a post its lenght and detail, and demonstrate too much effort was put into it by using various mesures. The number of responses to that post is such a mesure. You put too much effort in your posts. Although metrics can be applied to most anything, the interpretation of the data is usually subjective. Not really. The data is often clear. It is just people who's feelings are hurt or agenda is in danger that will say "nu-huh". E.g. Global warming. There is no need for a consensus for something to be true or factual. Most of the subject discussed in CM's senate are. We even have our own Nazi and various enablers (one of which is ironically Jewish, at least for his internet persona). I won't show them and their ideas respect. You're being a usefual idiot when you show them respect. You're give their ideas credibility. Congradualtion, moron. You helped the Nazis. |
|
Belen
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by Belen on Oct 16, 2019 15:43:34 GMT
Not all differing opinions are destructive. The issue is where is the threshold for the expression 'at some point.' Even when the expression 'do no harm' is used, what constitutes harm? What about situations where harm may occur regardless? Is it more harmful to the fetus to be aborted, or for it to be born without support by those who objected to its termination? Although some issues may be considered black and white, many aren't. Never feed kzach. It does no one any good. You either agree with him or you are evil. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Dec 22, 2019 12:59:15 GMT
Never feed kzach. It does no one any good. You either agree with him or you are evil. Yep. I think both the righties and lefties on this forum can agree on that! |
|
