Second attempt after feedback...

 

Obama –election scenarios

 

What do you think is most likely out of these scenarios?

 

 

option 1. Obama will be elected president, without vote rigging. And without knowingly deceiving the public.

 

option 2. Obama will be elected president, without vote rigging. But with knowingly deceiving the public.

 

option 3. Obama will be elected president, with vote rigging, and without him realizing that it’s being rigged.

 

option 4. Obama will be elected president with vote rigging, and with him realizing it’s being rigged. And with him knowingly deceiving the public.

 

option 5. Obama won’t be elected.

Edited November 1, 200817 yr by dichotomy

I'd ask you to define "deceiving the public", but I think I'm just going to pass on this one altogether.

I bet my friend 10 bucks McCain's going to win.

Deceiving the public is being a Clinton. Saying whatever you can to win, and not actually backing any of it.

That's not deception, that's marketing and politics (and, equivocation).

How many of these Obama polls are we going to have? Why don't you start a thread on the Obama Man-crush Phenomenon and spill your guts?

Deceiving the public is what politicians do. I've yet to see an exception. For example, in the debates both McCain and Obama lied about each other. Until people are willing to take the time to listen to the truth, quick easy lies are what is going to win.

Deceiving the public is what politicians do. I've yet to see an exception. For example, in the debates both McCain and Obama lied about each other. Until people are willing to take the time to listen to the truth, quick easy lies are what is going to win.

 

It always amazes me that what they believe in is more important than their behavior. I would NEVER land a minimum wage job with an employer that knew I would lie to get the job and falsely present myself to get people to like me, but likes my views on crispy fries.

 

Yet we do it over and over and over and over...for a $400,000 / year job. And I can't get a single person to budge on not rewarding one of these two with the office. Anyone who elects these people really has no place to complain about it. It's like watching the battered mom keep going home, night after night, while she complains about her abusive husband.

 

I know I say it alot, but it bears repeating, it's more important to be honest and imperfect than it is to be deceitful and seemingly mistake free. Look at how Greenspan had to retire before he could admit blame on something.

 

Could you imagine what politics could be like if all of our legislators and executives could admit when they're wrong, and forgive other's mistakes in kind? Could you imagine what it could be like if we the people roasted them for distorted rhetoric and deceitful intent; punished them with rejection at the voting booth? It's not so much about rewarding honest effort, as that's what we're supposed to expect for crying out loud, it's about punishing bad behavior at the expense of our union. How seriously are they taking our republic when they abuse it this way?

 

They act like they do because we let them - we enable this whole charade. It's a response to us. Just like fast-food and TV, they're just playing to our apparent demand. And it's working great. We get exactly what we deserve.

I bet my friend 10 bucks McCain's going to win.

 

Should've bet it in Vegas... you could make $77 off that $10 if McCain won:

 

http://www.1800-sports.com/presidential-betting-odds.shtml

 

Obama has a 10 point lead in the latest Gallup poll:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

 

And 538 now places Obama's odds of winning at 97.2%

Edited November 1, 200817 yr by bascule

It always amazes me that what they believe in is more important than their behavior.

I sincerely feel that this is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the extremely high level of religiosity in our society. One could argue which came first (chicken/egg), but the two (placing greater importantce in belief than in behavior and the high religiosity in the US) are highly interrelated regardless of which takes primacy.

I on the other hand think it is due to the lower standards resulting from our two party system. Because our voting system results in votes for a third party being wasted, there's two jokers who are almost guaranteed to be elected because no one will vote for anyone else because they wouldn't win anyways. So they pick the one that is less evil, making our leadership be the second most evil and calling it progress.

I on the other hand think it is due to the lower standards resulting from our two party system. Because our voting system results in votes for a third party being wasted, there's two jokers who are almost guaranteed to be elected because no one will vote for anyone else because they wouldn't win anyways. So they pick the one that is less evil, making our leadership be the second most evil and calling it progress.

is this the media's fault, or our own? Or maybe precedence. There have never really been more than 2 powerful parties at any given time in this country. (not strictly true, I think, but more or less).

It is the fault of the voting system, and the existence of parties. Because of parties, we know or are almost guaranteed which two candidates will have the most votes. Because a vote for a losing candidate is wasted, people vote for one of the top two candidates even if they don't particularly like them, "the lesser of two evils".

 

The media has no fault in this, though they do bear a good portion of the blame for other aspects of elections, such as how deception is not roasted (sometimes they even help with the deception), and the importance of things like flag pins.

 

edit: If our voting system is not changed, there will only ever be two powerful parties at any one time. Though at times a third party might raise to the level of the other two, this will be an unstable position. Eventually, one of the parties would be weaker than the other two, and the effect will once again take over, where voting for that party would be wasting the vote. So even if we do get a powerful third party, it will quickly result in the downfall of one of the two leading parties, not in a three party system.

Edited November 1, 200817 yr by Mr Skeptic

I on the other hand think it is due to the lower standards resulting from our two party system. Because our voting system results in votes for a third party being wasted, there's two jokers who are almost guaranteed to be elected because no one will vote for anyone else because they wouldn't win anyways. So they pick the one that is less evil, making our leadership be the second most evil and calling it progress.

 

Not sure about what initializes the lower standard, but I definitely agree with the point on how it's enabled with our voting system. It's impossible to get folks to vote for the right guy over voting against the wrong guy.

 

is this the media's fault, or our own? Or maybe precedence. There have never really been more than 2 powerful parties at any given time in this country. (not strictly true, I think, but more or less).

 

The fact we've always really just had 2 powerful parties would seem to indict our voting system. Or, more accurately, our voting system compliments our lowered standards (which we enable) and feeds this two party thing.

Though at times a third party might raise to the level of the other two, this will be an unstable position. Eventually, one of the parties would be weaker than the other two, and the effect will once again take over, where voting for that party would be wasting the vote. So even if we do get a powerful third party, it will quickly result in the downfall of one of the two leading parties, not in a three party system.

 

I agree. I think it's also psychological. Two sides is just the American way.

edit: If our voting system is not changed, there will only ever be two powerful parties at any one time. Though at times a third party might raise to the level of the other two, this will be an unstable position. Eventually, one of the parties would be weaker than the other two, and the effect will once again take over, where voting for that party would be wasting the vote. So even if we do get a powerful third party, it will quickly result in the downfall of one of the two leading parties, not in a three party system.

 

I disagree on the basis of lack of evidence. I suppose the electoral college makes in difficult for a third party candidate to get electoral college votes, even if they attract a certain percentage of the popular vote (Perot in '92) but why does it intrinsically have to be this way in our current system. I see no empirical reason why only 2 parties are sustainable (other countries, albeit with parliments, seems to be fine with many parties).

Other countries have other voting systems. It is not the electoral college that is the problem, but as I said that votes for a third party candidate are wasted. We get to vote for one person only, and if he does not win, your vote is wasted. Not all voting systems are like that.

 

For example, some voting systems allow you to rank candidates on the basis of which you prefer most. This would allow you to put several people as your preferred choices, and then at the end the Democratic or Republican candidate. The result would be that you can vote for multiple candidates without being penalized if they lose. Instead, your vote would be transfered to the next candidate on your list. If you wanted to, you could just vote for one candidate like you do in our current system, so this system gives you more choice than the current system.

 

And yes, with our current system people could choose to ignore who is likely to win and vote for who they really like. However, that would result in a lost vote for the candidate who actually has a chance to win and that you like better than his competition. An additional result is that third parties weaken the party that they are closer to ideologically, making them somewhat self-defeating. Even third party candidates will frequently tell you to vote for the Democrat/Republican instead of him because it would make a difference to the campaign that way.

I like the "pick your top three choices" method. If my number one doesn't have enough to win, my number two gets my vote. Makes sense since it's about ranking.

And yes, with our current system people could choose to ignore who is likely to win and vote for who they really like. However, that would result in a lost vote for the candidate who actually has a chance to win and that you like better than his competition.

 

But isn't this still circular logic... if everybody voted for who they like, rather than who they think has a chance, then the person who a majority likes best would still win... even if the vote is split among more people.

But isn't this still circular logic... if everybody voted for who they like, rather than who they think has a chance, then the person who a majority likes best would still win... even if the vote is split among more people.

 

The problem is that not everyone will vote for who they want, since they realize that they can actually make a difference by voting for one of the top two candidates instead. This has become so commonplace, that people think anyone voting for a third party candidate is weird and also will even resent them if the election doesn't go how they wanted -- "why did you waste your vote on that guy?!?". While it is possible for people to set that aside, they would have to do so as a group to make a difference, while doing so individually would be counterproductive. In any case, it would involve millions of people acting against their own self-interest, which makes this unlikely.

The problem is that not everyone will vote for who they want, since they realize that they can actually make a difference by voting for one of the top two candidates instead.

We're back to the beginning, I think. This seems more a product of our own psychology than with inherent flaws with our voting system.

 

This has become so commonplace, that people think anyone voting for a third party candidate is weird and also will even resent them if the election doesn't go how they wanted -- "why did you waste your vote on that guy?!?".

yeah I get that a lot. Except for maybe Ralph Nader, people don't even recognize the names of 3rd party candidates.

 

While it is possible for people to set that aside, they would have to do so as a group to make a difference, while doing so individually would be counterproductive. In any case, it would involve millions of people acting against their own self-interest, which makes this unlikely.

So maybe its weak third parties who are inept at fundraising and spreading awareness about their own interests, rather than the voting system.

We're back to the beginning, I think. This seems more a product of our own psychology than with inherent flaws with our voting system.

 

Consider something like the Prisoner's Dilemma. This is a "game" that is used all the time by the police. Two suspects are given a deal such that:

if they both rat on each other, they both loose out,

if one rats on the other but the other does not, the one who ratted out goes free or serves a very light sentence,

if neither of them rat on the other, they will both be given a light sentence on a different charge.

 

Any game with a reward structure of that type is called a prisoner's dilemma, even if it does not involve prisoners.

 

In the case of the prisoner's dilemma, they are both better off if they cooperate, but regardless of what the other does, each is better off if they do not cooperate. The result is that people in a prisoner's dilemma almost always will both choose not to cooperate, since that is the better choice for them individually. While they would both be better off if they cooperated, they have no guarantee that the other would cooperate and in any case would individually be better off not cooperating. So collectively, they will act against their collective self-interest, simply because of how the rules of the game are set up.

 

yeah I get that a lot. Except for maybe Ralph Nader, people don't even recognize the names of 3rd party candidates.

 

So maybe its weak third parties who are inept at fundraising and spreading awareness about their own interests, rather than the voting system.

 

But why would anyone want to donate to a party that is not going to win? How can they raise awareness without any funds? And why would anyone even pay attention to them since they are not going to win? Conversely, people would want to donate money to a campaign that is likely to win. This vicious circle can be broken, but then it would rapidly reform again unless there were some effort to keep it broken.

 

I thought it kind of amusing how there were only two people in the presidential debates.

But groups like the Libertarian's Cato Institute don't suffer from lack of funds (though I don't they don't support a particular candidate). while they might not be in the league with the Dem and Repub parties, there's plenty of rich Libertarians out there who donate.

 

Of course, 3rd parties like the LP have to spend a lot of money just to get on the ballots, but maybe they wouldn't have to if they advertised their candidates better.

 

Honestly, sometimes I think 3rd parties like not being in the mainstream. That way, they can complain when something doesn't go their way, but they don't have to deal with the stress of actually being in charge of things. I find this is common with self-proclaimed "intellectuals" (myself included!).

Well I have never seen a third party in charge of much of anything in America to see any theories about their rule to be proven or disproven.