Presidential Election 2016

2016-02-04 04:08:24

#576

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

d4rkph03n1x wrote:
Hi, just dropping in to state a casually informed yet widely accepted opinion that nothing will change regardless of who wins come general election time. The sad truth of western democracy is that it doesn't work properly. Unless you call siphoning currency all the way up to the upper echelon "working", in which case, everything is going as intended.

The turkeys who drafted your laughable constitution deserve opprobrium, not the messianic worship you're brainwashed into giving them.

Fuck Israel

2016-02-04 04:23:10

#577

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

So why are Americans so angry?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324

I'd say its because their democratic system sucks so horribly.

220 Years of fail, half to three-quarters of those years deadlocked lame-duck years.
44 Presidents who mostly played golf

I'd be angry.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-02-04 04:24:19)

Fuck Israel

2016-02-04 04:37:30

#578

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

Sounds like it's working as intended to me

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-04 04:43:09

#579

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Your election process has a 4% failure rate and mathematically allows 21% of the population to pick the leader. top kek electoral college.

Last edited by Cybargs (2016-02-04 04:43:31)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2016-02-04 05:10:49

#580

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

Can you think of a better way to not make small population states completely irrelevant to the election process?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-04 05:19:29

#581

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Jay wrote:
Can you think of a better way to not make small population states completely irrelevant to the election process?

go to 2:20

2016-02-04 08:46:02

#582

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +691|6509|Washington St.

Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd be angry.

You ARE angry. You complain more than the entire us population of this site. How many times have you even been to this country you can't stop bitching about?

2016-02-04 10:55:19

#583

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

America is doomed. We are all doomed.

2016-02-04 11:07:03

#584

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +691|6509|Washington St.

SuperJail Warden wrote:
America is doomed. We are all doomed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXU8w336oGs

2016-02-04 13:42:05

#585

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6932|Purplicious Wisconsin

SuperJail Warden wrote:
America is doomed. We are all doomed.

I remember thinking that in both of Obama's Presidential elections, I got over it.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2016-02-04 17:59:52

#586

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Can you think of a better way to not make small population states completely irrelevant to the election process?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

go to 2:20

I couldn't care less about a video. Answer the question.

We are a collection of states. Our president, rather than being directly elected by popular vote, must instead gain enough support by winning 50 individual state elections. Clunky? A bit. But it makes sense in the context of our country being the United States. There's a lot in a name.

Last edited by Jay (2016-02-04 18:01:15)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-04 18:23:49

#587

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6850|949

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Can you think of a better way to not make small population states completely irrelevant to the election process?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

go to 2:20
I couldn't care less about a video. Answer the question.

We are a collection of states. Our president, rather than being directly elected by popular vote, must instead gain enough support by winning 50 individual state elections. Clunky? A bit. But it makes sense in the context of our country being the United States. There's a lot in a name.

The video refutes your point by noting that candidates need only to make sure they win a certain number of states. California is always going to go blue, so Repubs focus their time on other more important states. So actually, the candidates don't need to win 50 individual state elections, just win the ones with the most votes that are swing states or otherwise on the bubble.

It's not a perfect way to do an election, but I'm not sure I've seen an alternative that would work better with ~220 million eligible voters.

2016-02-04 18:27:17

#588

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6850|949

Cybargs wrote:
pirana6 wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
How can you elect someone with only 28% of the votes?

This is not deciding what is for dinner but electing the most powerful person in the world. America your electoral process is broken.
You may not be wrong but I think you have a misunderstanding of how primaries work
I think he's just saying how stupid first past the post is.

The primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are supposed to be representative of how the rest of the US will rank candidates. After the primaries, the parties get together in conventions and pick which candidate they will promote to run. The primaries influence how the party delegates will cast their vote at the conventions.

In the last presidential election, around 60% of eligible voters voted. So no, people aren't getting elected based on 28% of one state's republican voters wishes.

2016-02-04 18:29:09

#589

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

go to 2:20
I couldn't care less about a video. Answer the question.

We are a collection of states. Our president, rather than being directly elected by popular vote, must instead gain enough support by winning 50 individual state elections. Clunky? A bit. But it makes sense in the context of our country being the United States. There's a lot in a name.
The video refutes your point by noting that candidates need only to make sure they win a certain number of states. California is always going to go blue, so Repubs focus their time on other more important states. So actually, the candidates don't need to win 50 individual state elections, just win the ones with the most votes that are swing states or otherwise on the bubble.

It's not a perfect way to do an election, but I'm not sure I've seen an alternative that would work better with ~220 million eligible voters.

And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.

Last edited by Jay (2016-02-04 18:30:17)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-04 18:30:41

#590

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6850|949

Dilbert_X wrote:
d4rkph03n1x wrote:
Hi, just dropping in to state a casually informed yet widely accepted opinion that nothing will change regardless of who wins come general election time. The sad truth of western democracy is that it doesn't work properly. Unless you call siphoning currency all the way up to the upper echelon "working", in which case, everything is going as intended.
The turkeys who drafted your laughable constitution deserve opprobrium, not the messianic worship you're brainwashed into giving them.

Who was responsible for drafting Australia's constitution and why is it laughable? I honestly have no clue regarding the history of Australia's government so I'm genuinely interested.

2016-02-04 18:36:26

#591

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
d4rkph03n1x wrote:
Hi, just dropping in to state a casually informed yet widely accepted opinion that nothing will change regardless of who wins come general election time. The sad truth of western democracy is that it doesn't work properly. Unless you call siphoning currency all the way up to the upper echelon "working", in which case, everything is going as intended.
The turkeys who drafted your laughable constitution deserve opprobrium, not the messianic worship you're brainwashed into giving them.
Who was responsible for drafting Australia's constitution and why is it laughable? I honestly have no clue regarding the history of Australia's government so I'm genuinely interested.

UK Parliament drafted it with several people who wanted a federation. We pretty much struck the middle of the USA and UK model of government.

We didn't cut our legal cord to the UK until 1986 with the passage of the Australia Act.

I think dilbs was referring to the US constitution.

2016-02-04 18:38:16

#592

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Jay wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay wrote:

I couldn't care less about a video. Answer the question.

We are a collection of states. Our president, rather than being directly elected by popular vote, must instead gain enough support by winning 50 individual state elections. Clunky? A bit. But it makes sense in the context of our country being the United States. There's a lot in a name.
The video refutes your point by noting that candidates need only to make sure they win a certain number of states. California is always going to go blue, so Repubs focus their time on other more important states. So actually, the candidates don't need to win 50 individual state elections, just win the ones with the most votes that are swing states or otherwise on the bubble.

It's not a perfect way to do an election, but I'm not sure I've seen an alternative that would work better with ~220 million eligible voters.
And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.

So why is a popular vote so bad then? You'd avoid situations where George Bush was elected due the electoral college system.

2016-02-04 18:39:30

#593

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6850|949

oh, i guess he should have noticed that the person he quoted was from the Gold Coast.

So then Dilbert, how is our constitution laughable?

2016-02-04 18:58:52

#594

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The video refutes your point by noting that candidates need only to make sure they win a certain number of states. California is always going to go blue, so Repubs focus their time on other more important states. So actually, the candidates don't need to win 50 individual state elections, just win the ones with the most votes that are swing states or otherwise on the bubble.

It's not a perfect way to do an election, but I'm not sure I've seen an alternative that would work better with ~220 million eligible voters.
And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.
So why is a popular vote so bad then? You'd avoid situations where George Bush was elected due the electoral college system.

Because no candidate would ever campaign outside of the major cities. Rural and small city voters would be made completely irrelevant.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-04 19:55:02

#595

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:

And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.
So why is a popular vote so bad then? You'd avoid situations where George Bush was elected due the electoral college system.
Because no candidate would ever campaign outside of the major cities. Rural and small city voters would be made completely irrelevant.

As they should probably be.

2016-02-04 21:03:18

#596

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:

And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.
So why is a popular vote so bad then? You'd avoid situations where George Bush was elected due the electoral college system.
Because no candidate would ever campaign outside of the major cities. Rural and small city voters would be made completely irrelevant.

LOL REALLY. That's your entire argument? so rural and small city voters can feel special? There are states that are still omitted from candidate visits due to the electoral college anyway.

2016-02-04 23:18:59

#597

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6899|Disaster Free Zone

pirana6 wrote:
I'm confused, is it that the republican caucus has their shit together?

Or caucuses in general?

They're both shit.

Republicans declare a winner with 28% of the vote. A system with no preferences if a totally flawed system.

Democrats... Where to start.
No written ballots
There is so many problems with this, it's unbelievable such archaic methods are still used anywhere in the world let alone the richest most powerful country to have ever existed.
1. Your vote is not secret. This has its whole own set of problems ranging from peer pressure to conform to bribery and in extreme circumstances treats.
2. The process takes hours and you have to be physically present. Anyone out of state, has a job or other commitments in basically ineligible to vote. The elderly, disabled or sick/injured are also put at a huge disadvantage.
3. There is no record of the votes, you can't do a recounts, human error (or fraud) can be rampant with no way to validate results.

And then to top it all off the result is decided by a fucking coin toss.

My 4th grade class president elections were run better then this. You should be ashamed at such incompetence America.

2016-02-04 23:23:14

#598

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6899|Disaster Free Zone

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:

And my state always votes democrat. Does it suck that my vote doesn't matter? Yeah of course, but in context the system makes sense.

I could just as easily say it's the fault of the people who live here for voting in the same party every election, but it's their choice.
So why is a popular vote so bad then? You'd avoid situations where George Bush was elected due the electoral college system.
Because no candidate would ever campaign outside of the major cities. Rural and small city voters would be made completely irrelevant.

That's bullshit. Your demographics requires small city votes to count, If you just campaigned in major cities you would be ignoring 90% of the country. You can't win with only 10% of the votes, except.... when you have a system set up how it currently is.

2016-02-05 00:27:10

#599

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

pirana6 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd be angry.
You ARE angry. You complain more than the entire us population of this site. How many times have you even been to this country you can't stop bitching about?

I've been to the great Satan 4-5 times.
In that period America has 'intervened' militarily in 11 different countries, each time for no reason other than its money-making/power agenda.

Fuck Israel

2016-02-05 00:28:03

#600

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Sounds like it's working as intended to me

Exactly my pojnt, its supposed to be shit. All these people complaining that its shit are missing the point.

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

d4rkph03n1x wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

d4rkph03n1x wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

d4rkph03n1x wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer