this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
276 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19123 readers
2715 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Asked how many members of the House of Reps there were, Stein guessed 600-some before hosts corrected her.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sensiblepuffin 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Gerrymandering. Next question.

[–] lennybird 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Spoiler Effect, too!

Gerrymandering only has to do with US Congressional House districts. Though I take it your point may be that the EC and Gerrymandering are propping up a dying party., which is absolutely true.

Bonus: Weevil ran away from a discussion we had when they tried to claim Democrats were blocking DC statehood because they, "didn't want a black state." when in fact it has always been Republicans to blame for blocking it. lmfaowtf360bbq.

[–] sensiblepuffin 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly. In a fair and independent contest, the concept of a "spoiler" wouldn't really exist. But given that the Presidency basically gets decided by a few million voters who live in swing states' contested districts, it turns out it's really easy for a niche candidate to derail the more likely ones just by trying to appeal specifically to them.

Nothing you can do about people like that shitting on your doorstep and running away other than to hose it down and hang up a sign that says "Please do not shit on porch". We live in a post-truth society.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Framing this as only a small group of voters in swing states is stupid. No candidate can win with just a few million votes scattered across a handful of states.

You are taking something very minor and turning it into a major problem. Its like saying Hilary would have won if not for the last minute news reports about her emails or whatever it was, when she lost because she didnt appeal widely enough to the american people, and carried an awful attitude while doing it.

[–] sensiblepuffin 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're not getting my point. I'm not saying someone can win with just a handful of voters from swing states, I'm saying that someone can stop another candidate from winning by courting those voters. Hence, a spoiler.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure that could happen, but then you never had those voters. At some point you have to lay the blame at the people who voted like this, if it happens.

This is like saying that getting a question wrong on a test can be the difference between pass and fail, and then picking a question at random and deciding to focus on that instead of the whole test.

You are right it could be enough people to match the difference in votes, but thats not the same as saying its essential we get that voter block no matter what. Theres a ton of things that make a difference, but its the collection of them that makes a candidate.

[–] sensiblepuffin 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your test analogy kind of proves the point, though. Say you have a 10 question test and 8 are very easy, and the last 2 are very difficult. In general, if you've done your homework, you should get most of the first 8. Whether or not you get a really good grade will depend more on the last 2. I think both parties are guilty of assuming they'll get the first 8 correct no problem, but there is a tactically sound reason to focus on the last 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue they focus too little on the first 8 and too much on the last 2. Both would be an error in analysis of course.

Also it runs the risk of people applying statistics to individual cases, or groups too small to be statistically relevant.

[–] sensiblepuffin 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you - and that's why gerrymandering is a problem, because it makes the last 2 questions more valuable to study for. As for statistics, that's for pollsters and analysts to work on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If everyone knows gerrymandering is bad, why is it still allowed to happen?

[–] sensiblepuffin 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because a good chunk of the population doesn't understand what it is and why it's bad, and a serious percentage of politicians benefit from it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Are you saying its essentially a thing Republicans don't know about or understand? I have to assume every democrat has heard the word, and it has simple explanations too.

I was under the impression republicans knee but defended it but it could be an ignorance thing, thats a fair point.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Add in actual prevention of people to cast a vote. Voter ID laws, closing polling stations in specific areas, trying to prevent mail-in voting, actively protesting in voting areas to scare away voters.

[–] antaymonkey 6 points 2 months ago

lmaowtf360bbq

Ohhhh this brings me back..