We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on Dusk / Dawn - AKH Split card?
    Mark Rosewater has made a few comments recently that point towards this being likely real, which is worrying to me. With everything else already in the set, this mechanic would make things pretty complicated.

    http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/158947660498/hey-mark-is-embalm-the-reason-youve-been-unable
    http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/158927157738/can-you-tell-us-if-the-mechanics-introduced-with
    http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/158927141188/have-we-already-seen-the-reason-for-the-lack-of
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Return to Theros, unfinished project
    I cannot access the files as you have included them here. I recommend using dropbox and/or putting text versions under spoiler tags
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on All Invocations March 28th
    Quote from Soldier »
    Quote from Empathogen »
    Um, wow.
    So with just what we have so far, there's:



    That's a LOT of countermagic.
    I really hope that:
    A- Mana Drain is in Hour. That seems almost a given looking at this list!
    B- Amonkhet proper has some decent countermagic in its own right.



    I'm not sure... Wizards once said 'they need to be hit by a bus before they reprint mana drain'

    That was talking about being in a standard set, these aren't part of the main set and are not legal in standard, so it's a different affair. The problem with reprinting mana drain is broken, but if you aren't putting it anywhere it isn't already in (besides every once in a blue moon in limited), then that's not an issue because nothing changes.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on All Invocations March 28th
    Quote from The Codfather »
    Quote from Manite »

    Of course, I can already see how this is going to play out: Maro will answer a comment on Blogatog responding to one of the vocal minority detractors answering that the frames received positive response from the majority of players


    Mark Rosewater actually polled people on Social Media and the response was overwhelmingly negative. The main reaction was praise to Wizards for doing something different but criticism for how the Invocations looked nothing like Magic cards.

    MTG social media is biased towards heavily enfranchised players. And keep in mind a voluntary polling system will always bias extreme responses as people are more motivated to go out and say them.
    We also haven't gotten them in person, and from videos posted by WotC people it looks like they look better in person.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Miasmatic Mummy
    Quote from a7xjoker33 »
    If I translated that flavor text correctly, it reads:

    "His breath does not attack the senses. It pollutes the mind."

    That sounds at least very close. Nice.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on All Invocations March 28th
    Quote from Empathogen »
    Um, wow.
    So with just what we have so far, there's:



    That's a LOT of countermagic.
    I really hope that:
    A- Mana Drain is in Hour. That seems almost a given looking at this list!
    B- Amonkhet proper has some decent countermagic in its own right.

    I'm guessing these are themed around the gods mechanically, which means the blue Ibis god has something to do with countermagic.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on All Invocations March 28th
    Quote from cyberium_neo »
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Quote from cyberium_neo »
    Invocation = things these Gods can do. Birdie counters things, the cat god appears in Worship so I presume defense, and snake god in Maelstrom Pulse.

    Perhaps this is as early a preview of gods as we get.


    Just to point out If that's the case

    maelstrom pulse they are multicolor.


    The Cat god casting Vindicate seems to support our claim.


    I don't see how the colors work out between the five if they are enemy color. If the cat god is WB and the snake god BG, then the crocodile god surrounded by an army of dark flesh zombies under a dark sky with the head of black associated creature cannot be black and I simply don't buy that one bit.
    Shards and wedges don't seem right to me with those those cards as starting points. I'm going to say they are just monocolor and these cards only have the gods casting them to fit the theme of the invocations series with the flavor backup of the gods splashing out to use different colors or something.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Mothership Info Dump - including mechanic info
    Quote from fleshrum »
    First Reaction: these cards are so generic!

    glad I read the article.

    Mechanics look like mostly re-runs. New counters seem like extra work. Just turn the card upside-down for the doubletap ability??

    It's not a double tap ability. Exerting a creature doesn't tap it or put it in a tap like state, it just stops it untapping. It's just usually going to be tapped in the process.
    You could turn it upside down to represent it being exerted, there is nothing stopping people doing that, certainly not the inclusion of the marker from the punch card. Why would they provide the marker on the punch card? Because it's a very clear and uninhibited way of indicating the creature is exerted. Turning upside down means it's not clear whether the creature is tapped or not, which is important because exertion doesn't necessitate the creature is tapped and you might want to tap an opponent's exerted creature if it's not. Turning upside down also makes it harder for you to read your own card especially with regards to reading your own board state. You could use dice or coins or something instead but that will make it harder to tell which creatures have -1/-1 counters versus are exerted, so having unique markers for both you can use if useful.
    Given these advantages, and the fact that the existence of the markers will indicate to newer players that they should consider marking their exerted creatures, I see only upside.
    And what does this whole point have to do with the mechanics being 're-runs'?

    use regular pennies/whatever for the bricks since they will likely be on noncreature artifacts?

    Not everyone has coins or dice easily available, and even more so, there are multiple counter types, even if they go on different permanents, here so having a unique counter marker just makes it easier to tell. Also factor in the existence of the marker indicating to players to use markers as with exerted.

    (I know the trend is always to complain, sure, but I can't imagine being excited for refined mechanics rather than new ones even if I did play this game religiously).

    It's both very easy and somewhat pointless to say things are the same when you haven't ever played with them to see how much the differences actually amount to. And in general, novelty is not the most important thing to any game. Novelty can even be counter productive.
    The novelty of these mechanics so far seems to be at a fairly standard level to me.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Is radical skepticism good to follow?
    Quote from AzureDuality »
    Essentially the claim that nothing can be known and that our senses lie all the time, that reason tends to favor our desires. Some people claim that and say they maintain a matter of suspending judgment on just about everything.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

    They call it Pyrrhonism and try to apply that non judging attitude to all of life. It claims that much of strife is based on human belief and opinions. That when we value what is good we suffer if we don’t have it and struggle to hold it when we do, I’m guessing valuing something as bad works the same way. So by maintaining an attitude of permanent indecision you “free your mind” from worry and find tranquility. Seems somewhat like Buddhism and that religion is pretty large. But I have to wonder how sound that is and whether or not it is practical? It has some points to it though, our senses are easily fooled so why believe them? Reason tends to be influenced by our desires and emotions. Can what we get from such things really be called knowledge?

    I find that the entire result of skepticism is not to resolve one's life to reservation because of the problems of absolute knowledge, but to make absolute consideration of absolute knowledge to be mostly irrelevant. Which is to say, it leads the way to a focus on pragmatic knowledge. This is not to the detriment of values but based on them. Without values, there is no meaning to knowledge. There is no meaning to any decision- things just are. But with values, we can craft something purposeful out of the static.
    And there are values, because we have them whether we like it or not. We simply can't not have them. It is a condition of the human mind. There is therefore meaning to us, there is a point to trying to make sense of the world and trying to live a fulfilling life in it. If we ignore the perception of values, and say 'how do we know they are there', 'how do we know our mind is there'- we are giving up any hope of meaning, knowledge and fulfillment, only to fulfill a fear of uncertainty and being wrong. It is to give up all positive only because you are afraid of a possible negative.
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties


    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.

    I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.



    Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.


    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted


    Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.

    If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.



    The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.

    If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.



    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US


    Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.

    Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
    (Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)

    What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.

    What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties that if a voters first preference is eliminated their second preference is going to be looked at and given to that party and again in a third round until a candidate gets 51% of the vote. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.

    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from


    Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.

    As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).


    And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.


    Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.

    I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.


    Then what is your crucial point? If it isn't ensure that each candidate gets 51% of the vote you are arguing for the wrong voting system cause that is what Alternative Vote/Instant Run off is designed to give you. Not increase the exposure of the minor parties in any way shape or form.
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties


    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.

    I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.



    Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.

    That's just a repetition of what you said earlier. No, it doesn't matter, as long as they get a significant amount of primary votes from other people, your secondary votes still make a difference because it generates publicity and being pushed to vote in a preference list like this encourages the voters providing those secondary votes to engage with third parties on some level.

    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted


    Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.


    If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.


    The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.
    If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.

    You have said that many times already. I have made it clear I am aware that if your primary vote is for a main party it's just going to stay there, and that if it's for a third party it's likely to end up going to be a major party. I am arguing there is more to it than it. Address those impacts directly, don't just repeat that major party often end up with all the votes.

    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US


    Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.

    Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
    (Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)

    What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.

    My initial point, right up there in your quote is explicitly talking about preference deals. It what way have preference deals not been mentioned? This particular chain of responses here is about them. What are you talking about?

    What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties

    1. Pretty dishonest to portray my argument as proposing 'magically fixing' issues. I have provided clearly stated reasons, which you have so far barely addressed.
    2. I am not proposing fixing 'all issues surrounding third parties'
    3. I repeat that I am not proposing this system around the idea of benefiting third parties but you continuously make it at least look like that's what I am arguing.

    . This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.

    That's pretty much the entire premise of this set of points I provided that we are discussing- that there are what can be seen as potential disadvantages surrounding third parties, and I am arguing why there are other factors that actually benefit third parties to at least roughly compensate.

    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from


    Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.


    As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).


    And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.

    But, as the original point for this line of responses states, the major party voters and the major parties themselves also express preferences about third parties, which means a third party can get publicity of good reputation with major parties in order to build their own dedicated supporter base. It's a valuable entry point for third parties.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on 3/13/2017 B+R Announcement: No Changes
    Quote from Serberus_08 »

    Banning Emrakul 2 could've had some eldrazi counter in dev or something and Smuggler's copter could've had a faster Shatter effect specified to just vehicles (Like Daring Demolition that was BB less to cast and as an instant, so it'd be playable). I don't know, I think bannings and restrictions should be the absolute last thing wizards should do and they shouldn't get to this level in standard with the option to make passable answers that aren't Force of Will caliber but situationally good in a set. (Reprinted Nature's Claim would have sufficed)

    The problem with this is that sets are locked in place months ahead of release, so it's going to be too late much of the time. Bannings are more flexible in the time slot, especially with the updated extra ban date. They do try to preemptively print some 'safety valve' cards that function like what you are described, but because they are preemptive, it's not clear what will actually need a safety valve.
    Safety valves also come in future sets, giving a little more room to see impressions, but they also aren't guarantees against problem because of their selectiveness- you don't print safety valves for everything.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties


    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.

    I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.

    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted


    Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.

    If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.



    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US


    Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.

    Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
    (Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)


    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from


    Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.

    As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).

    Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.

    I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Highroller »
    You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate

    Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
    Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
    Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?


    No you have given multiple theoretical reasons for your case. But you have kept running into the same cold hard realities of the US situation. That being the minor parties are going to be the ones eliminated early so a vote for them will end up being a vote for the major party most likely ensuring that one of them gets more than 50% of the vote.

    This is what Alternative vote aka Instant run-off is designed to do. Gradually weed out the smaller parties until you have 1 party that secures a majority and do it in a single visit to the ballot box

    I don't mind that. It's not like third party are winning all these elections in the US that they will now lose. It's maybe not ideal, but the system is not really ever going to be.

    Could this result in a smaller party gaining a seat in parliment that would other wise go to a larger party. Yes if they are fortunate enough to get enough votes in the first round to not be eliminated and then pick up enough second/third preference votes from the people who voted for those eliminated parties. Yes but if that happens it is a happy accident.

    You are arguing that this side effect is the main reason for implenting Instant run off voting.

    No, I'm not. I am arguing the main reason for implementing a preferential vote (note that instant run off isn't necessarily the system I am suggesting should be put in place, but one that uses preferential voting of some kind, instant run off being a main way of doing that), is to give people the freedom to express a more sophisticated preference. Namely, not having to compromise being showing support for a third party and providing a compromise vote. That in and of itself is my main argument.

    If you truely want to boost 3rd party results purely by changing what happens at the ballot box

    Boosting 3rd party results for the sake of it is unethical and not what I am arguing.

    Otherwise you are just going to get into a similar situation where very little has changed. Independants/Small parties will still be picking up the odd seat here and there where they have good representation but the major parties will still take the majority of the seats.

    I'd argue preferential voting helps third party in that
    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change.
    I'm ignoring this because it's not the situation you're talking about. You're criticizing the US system based on the situation third party voters find themselves in when they are not competitive, which is that they must choose between voting for their preferred party or voting for a party that is actually competitive and compromising.

    To say "third parties might win" is meaningless. Yes, they do win. They also win here. And it's the same damn thing when a third party or independent actually is competitive over here, so once again you've not changed anything.
    .

    Yes, I have. Yes, they are different situations so you could change to do the same thing in the US system, but then the voter has to figure out whether they think the third party will win or not, and because that's not likely, a lot of people are just going to decide no in almost every case, so it accentuates itself.
    Under the preferential voting system, the voter doesn't have to try to figure out whether it's worth voting third party if they prefer them, they just put them high on the preference list. Therefore importantly here, you don't get third parties losing elections they could have won because voters were scared of wasting their votes. Because your vote doesn't get wasted.


    What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
    It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.
    Which ultimately plays out exactly the same way as the scenario in our system that you're complaining about when the third party isn't competitive - that you end up switching your vote for the competitive party.

    I have told you repeatedly, explicitly, that I am not complaining that people switch their votes to a major party. Repeating that I am is only weakening your argument. So don't.
    What I am complaining about is that compromise votes don't give you any room to show support for a third party at the same time. Preferential voting definitively solves that issue. Not to say there aren't potential downsides, talking about major party dominance and whether preferential voting will actually increase that, that's a valid concern. But this point matters to people, whether you think it does or not. If voting is about the people getting what they want, then surely this is valuable?


    So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter
    Of course not. I'm saying the primary vote doesn't matter, it's a superficial distinction, as perfunctory as someone saying, "Your call is important to us," while putting you on hold.

    So
    They do that here as well
    is unimportant then. Third party votes are a complete waste unless the third party could realistically win?
    Because if they are not, then my point applies- and I'll tell you that there are definitely plenty of people who find third party votes even when they won't win to be worthwhile. So I advocate giving these people the ability to express a major party preference as well as their ideological statement.



    Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?

    Confused You're saying that the current situation has problems, and you have a solution to those problems because you have a system that works differently. I'm saying that your proposed system is ultimately the exact same thing as our current system - the very thing you were objecting to. Now you're trying to argue that the fact that your system ultimately results in the exact same thing is a positive thing?

    Because I was talking about the third party vote as a statement and you said you can do the same in the US. Well you can do that in Australia alongside a compromise vote as well, which is exactly what I have been saying.


    Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this,
    You've given nothing more than a repetition that it does matter with no justification

    Oh really?
    For the last time, the primary vote of a preferential voting system matters because
    1. It actually can determine elections, third parties do actually win.
    2. It makes a statement
    3. It gets publicity for the third party

    What does that look like to you? I'm calling you on this.
    And to reiterate, it does all these things while allowing you to put down a compromise vote alongside it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    The protest votes rarely have sufficient volume to concern much concern in the US as far as I am aware.
    They probably threw the 2000 election to George W. Bush and possibly the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.

    The word 'rarely' does indicate that it happens.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    So, it's not important you could put a vote that could give a third party a win, and put a vote that favours a major party at the same time?

    It's not at the same time. For it to be the same time, you would need to give someone more than one vote. Your vote only ever counts for one party at a time, ultimately switching to a later party. The only effective difference between voting for a third party and then having it switch to a main party, or just voting for the main party because the main party is actually competitive is that there are more steps involved. You've taken up more time. That's it.

    That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change. What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
    It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.

    And it's also not important to put a vote for a third party to make a statement and try to pressure the major parties, even if it doesn't affect the election.

    They do that here as well. Again, no effective difference. No difference in the ultimate outcome.

    Yes, Highroller they do that in the US. But they can't do that and express a preference about the major parties. So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter in that it's comparable to the US, and that therefore this is something to be said about being able to do that and make a compromise vote on the major parties?

    You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate

    Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
    Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
    Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Highroller, you can't ignore the primary vote. I am repeatedly hammering you about the idea that the primary vote is important, and you just ignore it and act like it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
    Because it ultimately doesn't matter.

    You trumpet this system as a great alternative to the current system because, in the instances in which the third party is not competitive, their votes get shifted over to one of the main parties, and what a wonderful thing this is, so much better than the US, in which... people shift their votes over to one of the main parties. Your position is: "I disagree with people shifting their votes, so I'm going to solve this problem... By having other people shift their votes for them."

    So, it's not important you could put a vote that could give a third party a win, and put a vote that favours a major party at the same time? And it's also not important to put a vote for a third party to make a statement and try to pressure the major parties, even if it doesn't affect the election. So, third party votes in general are not important? Because those are the only things a third party vote does in the US. Should we just get rid of third parties, while we are it?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    No, I have been saying it's bad you can't both make a competitive choice and a more ideological choice, that you have to pick between one or the other.
    But you end up picking between one or the other anyway.

    Your vote does not count for both. You don't get two votes. You are forced to vote for one of the actually competitive parties after the choice you really want gets eliminated. You are forced to compromise.

    Highroller, you can't ignore the primary vote. I am repeatedly hammering you about the idea that the primary vote is important, and you just ignore it and act like it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. I'm not going to continue if you can't follow. I'm only going to repeat myself so many times.
    For the last time, the primary vote of a preferential voting system matters because
    1. It actually can determine elections, third parties do actually win.
    2. It makes a statement
    3. It gets publicity for the third party

    And those three points are all you can really say of third party votes in the US, the only 'disadvantage' is the votes get transferred when they wouldn't matter anyway, making this 'drawback' moot.


    And that's really it. You're complaining because people are forced to compromise, saying this is a horrible thing our system does. But it's not particular to our system, it's particular to all representative governments. The fact that we have parties at all is a result of the necessity to compromise that comes from any system in which majority vote is a determining factor of what gets done.

    Don't give me a speech about the virtue of compromise, that's just red herring territory. Stay on point.


    And the fact remains, if that's such a problem for you, this system does not solve it. It makes zero sense for you to complain about having to choose between the group that ideologically fits you and the group that actually has a chance of winning and then advocate a system that is entirely built around just that.

    A system that's entirely built around combining the two.

    So in essence, you're crafting a system that benefits parties as opposed to voters. In our system, protest votes actually carry weight. They're not just nominal, they carry value. In our system, if someone doesn't vote for you, you don't get a chance to reclaim that vote, it's lost to you, so there's a lot of incentive upon you to give the person enough to get them to go along with you. And I would imagine that benefits the voter more. People side with certain parties because those parties have at least promised to enact changes that these voters want. In our system, there's a greater incentive for other parties to create concessions to try to bring voters over. But if the Republicans and the Democrats knew that all the protest votes for third parties were just going end up coming back to them anyway, why change? What, are all the Green Party people going to vote Republican? No, of course not. Are Libertarians going to support Democrats? No, of course not. So why change? If anything, this frees up the major parties to court those voters less, not more.

    Because, as I have already argued and you just ignored to reiterate what others have already said, there are other factors in play.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from user_938036 »
    It seems that everything you are pushing for is summed up here
    THAT is what I have just spent the last few posts telling you I am actually arguing whenever you say I am just trying to benefit third parties. I will admit I am also claiming benefit to third parties, and this page does seem to disagree on that point, but I suspect it means it terms of candidates getting elected. because of people's freedom to vote for third party as well as main party, I think it means third parties get much more influence on the main points, as well as general public recognition. I am not sure therefore, that it is more difficult for third parties to get elected overall because while the way votes get distributed may (I say may, I haven't looked very much into this) mean less chance of third party victory, I think the system promotes much more third party presence. I am pretty sure that overall it doesn't hurt third parties, even if it hurts their election chances, because of other benefits to third parties.
    Also do note, that I am not talking about the Australian preferential voting system, but the idea of a preferential voting system in general. I am not arguing the US voting system should necessarily work exactly like the Australian system. If there is a problem with the Australian system compared to the US system and there is a way to maintain the US advantage while incorporating preferential voting, then I am all for changing both. Keep that in mind with all of these points.

    Basically you want preferential voting so that third parties can get their 'actual' support even if it is less than necessary to be elected because then everyone can actually see how much support they have rather than the current system where they only get as much support as people who are willing to throw away their vote in protest. The point of this would be that major parties would then see this support and 'maybe' change their position on some policies. While currently this will happen if enough people protest vote to cost the 'similar' major party to lose to the other major party, they are then forced to change to get back the protest votes.

    The protest votes rarely have sufficient volume to concern much concern in the US as far as I am aware.

    However the preferential voting system doesn't actually encourage major parties to change at all, it actually encourages them to stay the same "the opposite of the other major party" because then you are guaranteed to get all the votes that are 'against' the other major party

    Except the third party voters usually want change and change in specific areas. People are fine with the status quote are generally going to want to vote for a major party.
    Example here, going off somewhat the example I used earlier and because it's one of the strongest ones, the Greens party support Labor over the Liberals, but a major part of the Greens platform is environmental issues, which means change. The Greens vote going to Labor is significantly based around Labor's history of more active climate change action. If that stops, Greens voters may vote liberal higher based on a number of other issues, such as for example right now the leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is somewhat popular among Greens and Labor voters, while Bill Shorten the Labor leader is often seen as uninspiring.
    Take into account also the important element than a significant percentage of the vote is cases where the voters defer their reallocation preferences to the parties preferences, which means a third party can itself directly put pressure on a major party to maintain policies or support around issues.

    the current system only encourages change when a 'significant'(enough to cause you to lose) minority pushes for it or when the majority has actually shifted.

    But then it only encourages any change from those third parties that actually pose a threat and only when they do. Preferential voting means every party and there voter base's preferences matter effectively constantly. And overall I think that generates more exposure that drives more people to consider the third party and therefore put pressure on the major parties.
    I think the culture of the preferential voting system at least can be more supportive of third parties.

    It can be summed up as preferential=everyone knows your preferences but it doesn't really matter at all, while FPTP=only certain people make their preference known and it rarely matters. Neither seem preferable but I would go with the one where your preferences can matter.

    Again, I don't think primary votes ever don't matter. They are a very tangible show of support. It makes harder for major parties to ignore third party's existence except when they think they are at threat.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Amonkhet Full Art Lands confirmed
    Quote from Serberus_08 »
    So will the bundles have full art land in the land base?

    Yes, but at the same 1/4 proportion as normal boosters, and not containing only full art lands.
    http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157568655928/hi-mark-will-the-basic-80-land-pack-in-amonkhet
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    By the way, I don't know if you noticed this, but if you reread that thing again:

    It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.
    Like, read it closely.

    It's saying that a vote for a minor party or independent candidate would be wasted UNLESS it were switched to a major party candidate.

    In other words, a vote for a third party candidate is useless either way. It's only if it's a vote for an actually viable candidate - whether it started out as such or was switched into being one - that the vote isn't wasted.

    In other words, I don't think this system works the way you thought it did.

    No, that's exactly how I think it works.
    Quote from me:
    No, I have been saying it's bad you can't both make a competitive choice and a more ideological choice, that you have to pick between one or the other.

    I have never claimed third party votes will not often end up changing nothing. Third parties don't usually win, that's why they are third parties. What I am claiming is it gives you more say by allowing you to express the equivalent of multiple ways one could vote to express their position in the US system.

    Quote from DJK3654 »

    But the only person with power over the reallocation of votes are the voters. And the tallying is done by an independent body from the rest of the government, so describing it as 'the government' is misleading.

    Ok, then the voting tally people are doing it. The point remains: whether the people who are voting decide to vote for the major parties, or their vote gets switched to the major parties, in the end, it's the exact same damn thing. It's just that one has a middle man and the other does not.

    No, it's not because:
    Your primary vote does not disappear from existence. It is still on record and reported on, and that matters. Which is as much as you can say for third party votes in the US as well. It doesn't matter if by the end of it it doesn't count towards the parties total if that makes no difference to anything, and it doesn't, because, if the third party was going win, if wouldn't get redistributed in the first place and the third party does win.

    Don't ignore my argument.

    So if you're objecting to people voting for the major parties because those are the ones with an actual chance of winning, as opposed to third parties which have no chance of winning, then touting this system as a solution to that is weird, in an ass-backwards sort of way, because saying, "No! I don't want third party voters to switch their votes for the dominant two parties, I WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT FOR THEM!" doesn't seem to actually accomplish anything meaningful here.

    So you are telling me the system works exactly how I have been saying it does and how I want it to, and then you say that fact is a counter to my objections with the US system?
    Interesting approach.
    Let me reiterate, because you have yet to respond accurately around this point:
    it's bad you can't both make a competitive choice and a more ideological choice, that you have to pick between one or the other

    That does not say 'it's bad that people make a competitive choice', that says I actively want people to be able to do it. You quoted this in your response, immediately after the section I am responding to here, but yet you think I am "objecting to people voting for the major parties because those are the ones with an actual chance of winning"?

    No, I have been saying it's bad you can't both make a competitive choice and a more ideological choice, that you have to pick between one or the other.

    But it doesn't actually matter either way. Your vote still doesn't actually end up counting for the party you want, it ends up ultimately counting for the party that was never your first choice.

    I have responded to this already, don't ignore my argument.

    Your vote is only switched at the point where it can no longer matter except as a protest vote. Your vote will not be redistributed if the third party could win with it. So it amounts to the same thing a vote for third party in the US does- a expression of support for the third party, while also counting toward the contest between the major parties.

    So in essence, "It's the exact same thing as the system I'm objecting to, unless the third party won't win, in which case the thing I'm objecting to will happen."

    I'm not sure you've really thought this argument through.

    No, in essence, you can do the equivalent of a third party vote in the US (that doesn't change the result, but makes a statement) and make a vote to express an impactful preference between the major parties. This quote you are responding to explicitly details why I think a third party vote on a preference list does matter as well as the deferral to a major party, but you've just ignored that argument.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Amonkhet formatting split cards... what the...
    Quote from Hackworth »
    I like this style if the formatting is consistent, and Aftermath always shows up on the tilted side.

    I only see every reason to support this is how it will work. I agree with this sentiment as well. They aren't the prettiest looking cards but they are fine to me, and the functionality is better for it, which is more important I think.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    No, the government does not relocate their votes if you use your preferences well, then you get to specify exactly the order for your vote to be relocated, and thereby show clearly what your support is for each of those parties.
    And then those in charge of tallying the votes reallocate them. This is what I mean by the government reallocating your votes.

    But the only person with power over the reallocation of votes are the voters. And the tallying is done by an independent body from the rest of the government, so describing it as 'the government' is misleading.

    So you're saying it's bad that people cast their vote for certain parties based on those parties actually being competitive for the vote

    No, I have been saying it's bad you can't both make a competitive choice and a more ideological choice, that you have to pick between one or the other.

    Yes, because they can also express a preference for the third party they support in doing so.

    Yes. Whoop-de-doo. Congratulations, you voted for a third party. Now we're going to switch your vote to one for one of the two dominant parties, so your vote counts for them instead of the third party you voted for.

    Your vote is only switched at the point where it can no longer matter except as a protest vote. Your vote will not be redistributed if the third party could win with it. So it amounts to the same thing a vote for third party in the US does- a expression of support for the third party, while also counting toward the contest between the major parties.

    Also, not only is this not actually more representative in practice, it's debatable whether this is representative in theory. At least when you vote for someone in our elections, your vote continues to count for the same person by the end of it.

    Your primary vote does not disappear from existence. It is still on record and reported on, and that matters. Which is as much as you can say for third party votes in the US as well. It doesn't matter if by the end of it it doesn't count towards the parties total if that makes no difference to anything, and it doesn't, because, if the third party was going win, if wouldn't get redistributed in the first place and the third party does win.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    You yourself said this was a valid argument:
    Ok, do not complain about my misrepresenting your argument and then act like I'm supporting you. You're saying it's "unnecessarily restrictive" and wrong to give each person one vote. I'm saying this argument is asinine. Let's get it together here.

    You said "You can say that maybe there's something inherent to the system that makes it unnecessarily restrictive, and there would be a debate there, but right now, you're essentially saying that the unfair thing is that only the parties that get large amounts of votes win in a contest involving voting"
    I am telling you my argument is the first one, but you seem to keep referencing my argument as if it's the second.

    And I told you this is what I was arguing- that without preferential voting people are restricted in a way that generally disadvantages third parties.

    If you're complaining about how this current voting system because it promotes a two-party system to the detriment of third parties and independents, well, it would seem you're going about this the wrong way.

    That's not exactly what I am arguing, I told you it was about fairness and voter choice in relation to third parties. Benefit to third parties is merely a secondary consideration in my argument.

    Quote from Advantages of the Preferential System »

    4. It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.


    Quote from Disadvantages of the Preferential System »

    3. It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

    EEK! OOOOPS!
    [/quote]
    Directing your attention to the page you just linked, you may notice this interesting point:
    It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.

    THAT is what I have just spent the last few posts telling you I am actually arguing whenever you say I am just trying to benefit third parties. I will admit I am also claiming benefit to third parties, and this page does seem to disagree on that point, but I suspect it means it terms of candidates getting elected. because of people's freedom to vote for third party as well as main party, I think it means third parties get much more influence on the main points, as well as general public recognition. I am not sure therefore, that it is more difficult for third parties to get elected overall because while the way votes get distributed may (I say may, I haven't looked very much into this) mean less chance of third party victory, I think the system promotes much more third party presence. I am pretty sure that overall it doesn't hurt third parties, even if it hurts their election chances, because of other benefits to third parties.
    Also do note, that I am not talking about the Australian preferential voting system, but the idea of a preferential voting system in general. I am not arguing the US voting system should necessarily work exactly like the Australian system. If there is a problem with the Australian system compared to the US system and there is a way to maintain the US advantage while incorporating preferential voting, then I am all for changing both. Keep that in mind with all of these points.

    You're saying that the problem is people end up voting for a candidate that doesn't necessarily reflect their values exactly due to that candidate having a greater chance of winning, and your response to this is to propose we shift to the Australian voting system... In which your vote ends up getting reallocated to one of the parties that actually has a chance of winning.

    Yes, because they can also express a preference for the third party they support in doing so. You can express support for the third party AND actually substantially influence the election. And that matters, even if their votes for third parties just get redistributed, because that first choice is reported on and that shows other people the third party support.

    So instead of people reallocating their votes by choice, you want the government to reallocate their votes for them. That does not make any sense.

    No, the government does not relocate their votes if you use your preferences well, then you get to specify exactly the order for your vote to be relocated, and thereby show clearly what your support is for each of those parties.

    Because then people's votes are based upon a kind of political strategy, instead of being an accurate representation of their beliefs and interests. Because then people's votes got to a party they actually don't support the most, and nothing from those people goes to the party they do, and the third party does actually get support from the voting system that reflects their support from the actual beliefs of the populace.
    How about that?

    Are you seriously suggesting, sir, that people might actually alter their strategy based on how a political system works in order that they might increase their chances of getting what they want? SHOCKING!

    I'm not saying it's bad that people choose to do that, or that it happens, but the extent to which it takes away from the vote representing the interests of the people. The vote is supposed to keep the government supporting the interests of the people, not be a little political game for voters.

    Not to mention, if you're complaining about the fact that people end up voting for someone who doesn't necessarily match their ideological views because he has a greater chance of winning, that's exactly what the hell happens under the Australian voting system. That's fundamentally how it works. If you're complaining about how people vote Republican instead of Libertarian or Democrat instead of Green Party because that party at least has some chance of winning, THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM! All of their votes are going to eventually get reallocated to the Republican or Democratic party anyway.

    Much of the time, yes, but their preference is expressed. A statement is made that, for example, this many Labor voters support the Greens more so than Labor, therefore Labor should listen to what the Greens are saying. The third party does not need to be elected to have an influence, because their preference numbers present a real show of support, and one that can threaten the main parties if they do not pay attention to it.

    The context of that comment was about ways in which major parties get systemic benefits from their status regardless of their support.

    No, you are once again ignoring that their status IS BECAUSE of their support.

    No, I am not. It results from support. Of course it does. But it is power that gives you MORE support based on how your existing support has larger effects.

    And there's a reason for this. Most third parties that rise to prominence tend to run towards extreme positions, or focus around one specific position around an issue that the two major parties aren't addressing. The reason they don't get elected is because third parties tend to either alienate people based on their extreme positions in the former case, or in the latter case, that issue ends up being addressed and the third party ends up being absorbed into one of the two major ones.

    And also, once again, the Australian system does not fix this. It just creates a system to reallocate the votes to the major parties.

    I have neither said anything about getting elected. Benefit means more than getting elected. Namely, the idea of influence of the major parties and public recognition.

    I have clearly been talking about system disadvantage, voter's ability to express their actual support, and fairness. I have mentioned all of these notions.
    Except this again this is silly, given that the voters end up having their votes reallocated anyway. If your problem is that people who want a third party to win often will vote for another party that actually stands a chance of winning to at least see the changes they want, then it really makes no sense for you to propose we shift to another system that is based entirely around that very concept. Now instead of a percentage of voters who support a third party choosing to vote for a party that has a greater chance of winning in order to maximize their likelihood of getting the things they want to happen to happen, ALL of them are going to end up voting for one of the two major parties anyway because the government shifted their votes.

    And all of them can do so while still showing support for the third party. You don't have to choose between making a statement and voting to make a difference. Your vote that makes your statement gets relocated to make a difference as well.
    Let's just be clear about this, as my initial statement in the OP indicates, the affect on third parties overall, not just the benefit to them, is secondary. The most important point about preferential voting system is how it allows people to express their preferences in detail, the next point of order is how that relates to third party supporter's choices, and the next one after that is the idea that it will produce some overall benefit to third parties influence.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You're implying a false dichotomy. Just because voters can choose to vote however they wish, and the voting system does not explicitly disadvantage third parties does not mean it doesn't disadvantage third parties.
    Yes, but the disadvantage you cite has thusfar been that the third parties don't get as much support from the populace.

    And, while that is a disadvantage, it's a disadvantage on par with one football team having much less skilled players than another football team. Namely, it's not unfair for the team that's less skilled to lose to the more skilled team. That's the point of a contest of athleticism, the team that displayed greater athleticism should win.

    Stop saying this, I've addressed it already. It's a misrepresentation of my argument and that should be clear from what I've said.
    You yourself said this was a valid argument:
    there's something inherent to the system that makes it unnecessarily restrictive

    And I told you this is what I was arguing- that without preferential voting people are restricted in a way that generally disadvantages third parties.

    I am. The fact that the elections are free is a glaring problem with your argument. You're claiming the system is unfair when it's working exactly how a vote should be working.

    It's obvious that free elections are more fair than non free elections and that the US voting system is free. That's not under dispute. But it's simply false to say that just because elections are free the voting system is fair. You're not addressing why I am wrong in claims about why there is a certain unfairness to the system, you're just introducing concepts that distract from the point at hand. If talking about free elections was being use in an attempt to discredit my claims, actually directing toward my claims, that would be absolutely fine, but you arguing that- you're just saying it's free therefore it's fair.

    It doesn't matter whether third parties would necessarily get more success

    Seems to matter to you. You appear to be selling this voting system on the promise that third parties will get more votes. Seemed to me that was your intention.

    Highroller, 'necessarily' is a fairly specific term. Generally or situationally getting something is quite fundamentally different to necessarily getting it. Benefit to third parties is not the complete picture of my argument, and I told you in this exact paragraph the detail of that.

    My argument is by general principle, third parties rely more on getting initial support from people already invested in politics to build enough exposure and perception of relevance to get more dedicated support. It's incredibly hard to break the major parties in America for this reason. Preferential voting doesn't guarantee change, but it allows it to happen in cases where I think it should, and secondarily I think on balance it's more beneficial than not to third parties.
    See? Right here. "Benefit third parties" seems to be the entire point behind this system you're proposing.

    If you ignore all the ways in which it's not, then sure. You're absolutely right.
    "allows (change) to happen in cases where I think it should" is not equivalent to "just benefit third parties". Neither is "on balance it's more beneficial than not".
    I am talking about making things a little bit fairer overall for third parties, not just giving them benefits for the sake of it. That should be clear from what I just said here, because that is pretty much exactly what I just said here.

    Now, crafting an entire system to the benefit of certain parties and the detriment of others

    A strawman for the reasons above.
    Note also that I am not crafting this system, this system is already in place in some form in a number of countries and is generally considered to be perfectly fair.
    I am not just making up this idea to benefit third parties, and neither did the people who made voting systems incorporating this.

    But even if we set that aside for now, let's look at the obvious flaw in what you're saying: the reason why third parties are not seen as relevant is because people choose voluntarily not to support them

    You cannot use voter choice to defend your position. For the last time, hopefully, I am arguing that voter choices are restricted in a somewhat unfair manner by the US voting system, and that preferential voting provides a fairer system in this way. It's irrelevant what voters choose, this is about how the system affects that. You tell me third parties don't get votes, I'll tell you that's the whole point, that they should generally be getting more but the system restricts that. I don't want to have to repeat myself on this again.

    No, I'm not. As I said, you only need to get the support to become a major party in the first place. After that, you have a privileged status of media and public attention.

    You're right, the media and public do tend to focus on things that large numbers of people care about and don't tend to focus on things that only a very small percentage of people care about. Not sure why that's a problem.

    Votes are far from an accurate measure of what people care about. For god's sake, like 40% of eligible voters in the US don't vote. That can't possibly be a reliable enough measure, even ignoring the whole point I'm making here about the influence of the voting system and the relationship to other societal factors on major parties vs third parties.

    Yes, they need to receive a certain amount of support to continue to be a major party, but it's much less difficult to maintain the necessary support once you've gotten to be major party.

    You're right, it is easier to be politically relevant when 50% of the country supports you than when less than 4% of the country supports you. Again, not sure why that's a problem.

    To repeat, you can't use the result of the system in question to prove the system is fair. That would only work if we assume the results are fair, which would be begging the question, now wouldn't it?

    People have and continue to vote for major parties because other parties aren't major enough to receive their attention, or because they aren't major enough to be seen as relevant.

    Yes, and they want to vote the party that actually stands a chance of winning over the party that doesn't. Again, I'm not sure why that's a problem

    Because then people's votes are based upon a kind of political strategy, instead of being an accurate representation of their beliefs and interests. Because then people's votes got to a party they actually don't support the most, and nothing from those people goes to the party they do, and the third party does actually get support from the voting system that reflects their support from the actual beliefs of the populace.
    How about that?

    and moreover, I'm not sure why you think that people will magically stop doing this exact thing when you give them more votes.

    Because the whole premise of this situation is removed- people no longer have to either vote to support the third party they support the most among the parties or express a preference between the major parties- they can do both, and in the order they think the two are most important.

    People can go into every single election knowing nothing except they support a major party and not have to worry, and they don't have to do as much research to get to that position. Hell, people are influenced by their peers- group think supports major parties too.

    This does not change under your system.

    The context of that comment was about ways in which major parties get systemic benefits from their status regardless of their support. With preferential voting, voting in the manner described here is not mutually exclusive with supporting third parties, people who do this aren't eliminated from supporting major parties because of their commitment to the major party. It now actually matter what they think of parties other than their own.

    Moreover, it makes it even clearer that you're creating your system with the expressed intent of benefiting certain political groups over others. How can you then proceed to label this as fair knowing your biases?

    Because I'm not doing that. I am not creating this system, it was not created for that reason, and I am not arguing it is good for that reason. It's silly for me to be here arguing the US system has a certain unfairness towards third parties, and for you to act like all I am saying is benefit third parties. I have clearly been talking about system disadvantage, voter's ability to express their actual support, and fairness. I have mentioned all of these notions.

    Let's say there are, I don't know, 16 candidates running for an office. I decide that I'm going to do the classic "child pushing every button in an elevator" play and fill in every single bubble, because weeeeeee! Bubbles! So I've cast a vote for all 16 candidates. So I've voted 16 times.

    Let's say a second person, he's just doesn't give a crap about the election. This one seems ok. This one seems ok. This other person's alright. He just says screw it, can't be bothered, so he votes for all three. So he's voted 3 times.

    Then the third person comes in, registered party member, very much ideologically in line with one of the parties, this candidate is perfect, exactly what he/she has been waiting to come along, and that person votes for that one candidate and no others. So he/she has voted once.

    So, I get 16 votes for being an ********, someone gets three votes for being apathetic, and the third person who actually cares and exhibits a strong preference gets 1 vote.

    Highroller, do you know how preferential voting works? Because, it doesn't sound like you do. Preferential voting is about voting for candidates in an order of preference, hence the name. A very long and complex vote like you describe here ultimately reduces to a vote for a single candidate, the preference list just means they are multiple candidates it could end up going to based on how successful they are. A more complex vote is just a more complex vote, it doesn't count for more, it just provides a more detailed description of the voters preferences than a simple vote.


    That's fair to you? That makes an abundance of sense? That the guy who doesn't care has more influence than the person who does have a strong preference over the final vote, but the complete jerkass has more influence over the final outcome than either of them? That's utopia to you?

    Do your research before you say this again.

    Also, what do you plan on doing about write-in candidates? You do know you can write in anyone, right? You want to give people an unlimited number of votes with the potential for write-in? Yeah, have fun with that.

    Look up how the voting system in Australia works please, then you have a reasonable idea of what this all actually means because you really shouldn't be having this conservation without looking at an example, because I'm not going to explain how preferential voting systems can work.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Alright, let's stick with one issue, which is the voting system thing, and table the mandatory voting thing for another day, it's getting late.

    So, voting system:

    Let's get one thing out of the way first. Yes, if you give a group of people an infinite amount of votes, more parties will get more votes than if you give each person one vote. Obviously.

    Now that this is out of the way...

    And I am not saying you mean to say that, but you are not acknowledging or addressing the idea that the voting system can unfairly affect third parties in how many votes they can get.
    Because there's nothing unfair about it.

    For it to be unfair, it would have to be based on something other than individual choice in a free election. Perhaps there are laws that specifically target opposition parties for restriction, or maybe the dominant party is using its power and influence to keep other parties out. This is an unfair advantage.

    But there's nothing unfair about this. As long as the third party is on the ballot, or is a valid write-in candidate, a voter is perfectly free to vote that person. And if that person does win, there is nothing preventing them from taking office.

    That's how a fair election works.

    You're saying this is unfair because certain parties win over others. But what is the mechanism behind those parties being the dominant parties? Graft? Corruption? Underhanded dealings? Persecution? Or is it the fact that the voters aren't choosing to vote for them, not because they're not given the choice, but because they are given the choice and choose otherwise? If it's the latter, then it's a free election. That's the definition of a free election.

    You're implying a false dichotomy. Just because voters can choose to vote however they wish, and the voting system does not explicitly disadvantage third parties does not mean it doesn't disadvantage third parties. There are more subtle and complex ways a voting system can be somewhat unfair than such superficially apparent ones.

    But if people are voting out of free choice, that is, by definition, a free election. You're saying that people are voting a certain way because they view the party they actually want as having no shot of winning due to its lack of support. Here's the deal: that's still a choice!

    This isn't about free elections and it never has been- that's a red herring or a strawman.
    Address the argument being made.

    And yeah, that's not a great choice, but here's the thing: that's a reality of politics under representative government. You need a base of support in order to get the votes to get anything done, and that means you have to have a broad enough appeal among different interest groups to be able to win, and that means compromising and not getting everything you want. It's why parties form. You think everyone in the Republican or Democratic party agrees with everything everyone else in the party does? Heck no! It's a loose coalition of people who are agreeing to work together because they acknowledge that they can't get everything they want, but they need to compromise in order to get anything they want done.

    And it will be just as much a reality under your system as it is under the current one. If we had a third party that got any significant percentage of the vote, that'd be one thing. But they don't. Gary Johnson got 3.2% of the vote last year. Would he have gotten more of the vote under your system? Maybe. Maybe he would have gotten less, you might have seen more people vote Johnson AND Clinton or Johnson AND Trump, or multiple people who were not Johnson, giving him an even smaller percentage of the overall vote. But the fact remains that Johnson wouldn't have won. He doesn't have the support.

    It doesn't matter whether third parties would necessarily get more success- and certainly presidential races are not a fair example. My argument is by general principle, third parties rely more on getting initial support from people already invested in politics to build enough exposure and perception of relevance to get more dedicated support. It's incredibly hard to break the major parties in America for this reason. Preferential voting doesn't guarantee change, but it allows it to happen in cases where I think it should, and secondarily I think on balance it's more beneficial than not to third parties.

    Also, if being a major party is an inherent benefit, you only need to become a major party from one election to reap consequential benefits in future elections from that status.

    Except you're ignoring why they're a major party in the first place.

    No, I'm not. As I said, you only need to get the support to become a major party in the first place. After that, you have a privileged status of media and public attention.

    They're a major party because they get a lot of votes. Should they stop getting a lot of votes, they would no longer be a major party. You may have noticed that the Federalists aren't a dominant force in American politics anymore.

    Yes, they need to receive a certain amount of support to continue to be a major party, but it's much less difficult to maintain the necessary support once you've gotten to be major party.

    You're acting like the major parties get votes because they're the major parties

    People have and continue to vote for major parties because other parties aren't major enough to receive their attention, or because they aren't major enough to be seen as relevant. People can go into every single election knowing nothing except they support a major party and not have to worry, and they don't have to do as much research to get to that position. Hell, people are influenced by their peers- group think supports major parties too.
    Yes, there are other ways in which third parties are advantaged, but I think it's fairly clear the biases and such favor major parties more so.

    So no, nothing about this is an unfair system. Once again, the reason that third parties don't win is that they have insignificant bases of support.

    I've never said anything about winning. Just support. Different, if related, arguments.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I've read your damn responses, all you said is that it's forced speech. But again, if it is forced speech for something to have to show up to a place and participate in an activity, then why is mandatory education perfectly legal? No, really. Give me one single relevant difference.
    This has already been explained to you.

    Nowhere in that post do I see an argument why mandatory voting goes against freedom of speech or why mandatory education is relevantly different.

    because mandatory voting does not require you to do anything with your vote, just formally register your participation. You can 'say' whatever you want when you vote, including nothing. There is no restriction on what you can 'say'. The only restriction is that 'saying' nothing cannot involve not showing up and registering your vote of nothing. Your voting options are entirely unchanged.
    No, they are not, because in one situation, you are choosing to vote of your own free will. In the other, the government is coercing you to vote. [/quote]
    But your voting options are unchanged regardless.
    You can make a blank vote (equivalent to no vote), or vote for whatever party or parties you choose.
    The only difference is to not make a vote you have to cast a blank vote which is legally counts as your vote, but is an informal vote, and the fact that is a vote in a sense has nothing to do with what choice of 'speech' you have in your vote because it says the same thing as not turning up. What you can 'say' is unaffected, only how you might have to go about saying it.


    You are no longer exercising a right, you are being forced to perform an action. That is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. The government is not allowed to force you to vote.

    Does it explicitly say that? No? Then tell me why it is different than the examples I have provided. You are claiming there is a difference, obviously, so what is it? As I have already said, you aren't limited in what you can 'say' by mandating voting, only that in order to say nothing you still have to turn up. That's not a restriction of speech. That's equivalent to making people turn up for education, just what you are turning up for is different, what is mandated about it is mostly the same- participate in the process in some way.

    More examples of the same thing being legal- court appearances can be mandatory. What about them?
    Yes, you are correct, the government is allowed to force you to do certain things. However, this does not mean the government is allowed to force you to do everything, nor should they be allowed to do so. That's what the Constitution is for, to say the government is allowed to do these things and not allowed to do these other things. That is pretty much the entire point behind the document, to say that these are the things the government is allowed to do, and these are the things they're not.

    Exactly, so tell me why these examples are things the government isn't allowed to do that aren't mandatory restricting your voting options (and therefore your speech) because it doesn't.

    And so your argument is circular and necessarily works for any voting system,
    No, it's not a circular argument, it's explaining to you the concept of how voting works.

    My claim is that people are intentionally not voting for third, but not always because they don't support them, but because they are limited by the voting system. Your response of 'but they don't get many votes' is a literal statement of one of the premises of my argument. I'm well aware they don't. That's the point- that I think the voting system affects that or at least can easily.

    making it impossible for a voting system to not allow sufficient support for third parties.
    No, I'm saying it's impossible, and SHOULD BE impossible, for third parties to gain significant power in a truly representative government without sufficient support. If they don't get the votes, they can't gain power.

    I agree with your statements wholeheartedly and that is why I am not suggesting we change how election should work based on the votes, but what options people have in how they can vote, as I have been all along.
    And I am not saying you mean to say that, but you are not acknowledging or addressing the idea that the voting system can unfairly affect third parties in how many votes they can get. You are acting like the number of votes a party gets is necessarily just so long as they are actual free votes. That ignores the influence of the voting system.

    I am arguing specifically that third parties are disadvantaged without preferential voting. What do you think disadvantage means here?
    I think you're saying they're disadvantaged because people aren't choosing to vote for them. And yes, that absolutely is a disadvantage, but it's not unfair for them to lose because of it. Likewise, a football team being down by 40 points is at a disadvantage, but for them to lose because of it is not unfair, it's exactly how things are supposed to work.

    If your problem is no one is voting for third parties, and the reason behind this is because they are choosing of their own free will not to vote for those third parties, then what is the problem? "Oh no, this person nobody is voting for didn't win the election, that means the system is broken!" No it's not. They didn't vote for him because they chose not to.

    Again, you are ignoring the influence of the voting system. How people vote is directly affected by the voting system. You can't ignore that.

    However, that's not what you're demonstrating. You're citing as the major problem the fact that people are only allowed to vote for one party, and thus aren't choosing one of the third parties in any large numbers. In other words, the problem is that there is no strong preference for any one third party in any significant numbers.

    Do you seriously not think it's possible for preferential voting to change the support given by the vote? Because it is. It obviously is. Choosing only one option is pretty ******* different than ranking a list of options.

    I am arguing with preferential voting they would get more votes specifically because it allows people to express more detailed preferences which is a large part of where third parties get support- because they aren't the major parties.
    That doesn't make any sense. The major parties are the major parties because the overwhelming majority of Americans choose, of their own free will, to vote for one of those parties. As in, they have the option to choose the other parties, but they still don't.

    And again, voting system directly influences voter decisions. Also, if being a major party is an inherent benefit, you only need to become a major party from one election to reap consequential benefits in future elections from that status.

    You can say that maybe there's something inherent to the system that makes it unnecessarily restrictive

    You know what would be funny? If I have been saying exactly that from the beginning.
    My very first point of argument on the matter-
    they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list

    'They should be able to'- sounds like I am talking about restriction doesn't it?
    Further quotes:
    As is, you can only put a vote for one. If you vote for a third party, you express no preference about the major two parties. Preferential voting allows you to do both. Why not give people that option?

    I am arguing that voters are not able to express their support for third parties adequately, that third parties are disproportionately affected by the lack of preferences and it could be more representative.


    You cannot use voter choice as the metric for evaluating the voting system
    What are you talking about? Of course I can! That's how a voting system works. You're saying that it's unfair that the third parties don't win because no one votes for them. The answer is no, it's not unfair, that's precisely how representative government is supposed to work.

    Ditto 'influence of the voting system'

    I am arguing that voters are not able to express their support for third parties adequately, that third parties are disproportionately affected by the lack of preferences and it could be more representative.
    That still doesn't make any sense. There's nothing not representative about the votes representing party preferences. That shows the system works. The system wouldn't work if a party that got less than 6% of the vote won the presidency. That'd be a great example of not being representative.

    I just clearly explained the point, I don't know what more I can say.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.

    Forced speech is not free speech. It gives the government power to force you to be somewhere. So yes, you are giving the government power it should not have

    Again, what about mandatory education? And what about prison?
    You aren't being forced in your speech, only participation in the process.
    Had you an understanding of the Constitution, you would see how everything you have just said is completely ridiculous.

    Had you the intellectual curiosity to research the Constitution to remedy your lack of understanding of the Constitution, you would see how everything you have said is completely ridiculous.

    Had you no intellectual curiosity to research the Constitution to remedy your lack of understanding of the Constitution, but read this thread and in turn read the responses to the times you had already posted this exact argument and comprehended their explanations of why everything you have just said is completely ridiculous, you would understand why everything you have just said is completely ridiculous.

    So as it stands, you have demonstrated neither understanding of the Constitution, the intellectual curiosity to learn about the Constitution, nor any willingness to even bother to read the thread you yourself started, or at least not to the level necessary to actually comprehend what is being written.

    So what you're asking me to do then, basically, is to go through the effort of posting another explanation of why this exact same position is wrong, so you can once again ignore it, only to make the same post again, as you did with the other explanations of why you are wrong?

    No. I'm not going to do that.

    Until you post something that isn't the exact same argument you've already made, a post that indicates you've actually read the multiple previous explanations of why this exact same argument is wrong and comprehend what was said, then I'm just going to instruct you to read your thread. It's not hard, it's only three pages long.

    I've read your damn responses, all you said is that it's forced speech. But again, if it is forced speech for something to have to show up to a place and participate in an activity, then why is mandatory education perfectly legal? No, really. Give me one single relevant difference.
    And no, that can't be because voting is speech, because mandatory voting does not require you to do anything with your vote, just formally register your participation. You can 'say' whatever you want when you vote, including nothing. There is no restriction on what you can 'say'. The only restriction is that 'saying' nothing cannot involve not showing up and registering your vote of nothing. Your voting options are entirely unchanged.

    More examples of the same thing being legal- court appearances can be mandatory. What about them?

    But you are measuring support from the voting system.
    Yes, I am measuring support from how people have voted to show their support. That's how a democratic republic works.

    And so your argument is circular and necessarily works for any voting system, making it impossible for a voting system to not allow sufficient support for third parties.
    I am arguing specifically that third parties are disadvantaged without preferential voting. What do you think disadvantage means here? It means the vote they get, which I would think obvious. You can't say in response, therefore, that they aren't disadvantage because they get low votes. That they get low votes is my point. I am arguing with preferential voting they would get more votes specifically because it allows people to express more detailed preferences which is a large part of where third parties get support- because they aren't the major parties.
    With no preferences, a vote for third party means expressing no preference about the major parties- is it not clear that people might not vote third party for this reason? And it becomes self feeding- the more the third parties become irrelevant, the more people who approve of their policies will not vote for them because of it, the more people who approve of their policies don't vote for them, the more they become irrelevant. Especially when their irrelevance allows contributes to whether people even know about them in the first place.

    If the argument is the current voting system doesn't allow for sufficient third party support
    Of course it allows for sufficient third party support. You can vote for third parties. People just don't choose to do so. If the third parties don't win because no one votes for them, that's not unfair, that's entirely fair, and exactly how things should work.

    Again, you are categorically excluding the possibility that the voting system doesn't not allow for sufficient third party support. Just because it allows for support at any level, doesn't mean it allows for sufficient third party support. You cannot use voter choice as the metric for evaluating the voting system- voter choice is directly influenced by the voting system and that's exactly the point. I am arguing that voters are not able to express their support for third parties adequately, that third parties are disproportionately affected by the lack of preferences and it could be more representative.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Muslim Ban and SEE YOU IN COURT
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/16/trump-loses-again-on-muslim-ban-and-then-makes-it-worse/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na&utm_term=.4d980ccdcdd3
    "And then as if to underscore the judge’s point, Trump at a rally in Tennessee later Wednesday evening declared that this was just a “watered-down version” of the first ban. His lawyers should have their hands full explaining that, if they choose to appeal the ruling."
    This is hilarious.
    It looks like Trump might have to completely revise his strategy here, because people are pretty determined to stop any kind of Muslim ban or Muslim ban alternative from ever happening.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Murder, assault, sexual assault and stealing are all oddly illegal then aren't they? Literally almost every possible action can be considered expression. You can't consider that freedom of speech. Speech is more than just any form of expression whatsoever.


    No, because those infringe upon the rights of other people. That's the standard. There's nothing unclear about that.

    Can you find me a statement from more than one legal professional that thinks murdering, assault, sexual assault and/or stealing are forms of speech? I don't buy your argument at all.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.d492055b3370

    "A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

    Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport"
    "A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
    "In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip."

    And voter identity fraud is 99% emotional overreaction, 1% real. It doesn't significantly affect any elections.

    Well, here's the thing. The Federal government should have dealt with this issue themselves. They left it to the state for no logical reason. Voting in state elections is in the domain of the state, but Federal elections are the domain of the Federal government. Voter ID laws need to reach the Supreme Court and get a wide-sweeping ruling. That would fix the issue completely.

    Possibility #1 is that they'd declare that it's illegal to require an ID and this issue would immediately end.

    Possibility #2 is that they'd declare it legal in which case they'd almost certainly put it solely in the Federal government's domain. That would prompt Congress to pass a Federal ID law, thereby invalidating all State laws on the issue. They'd then face legal challenges as to the manner in which it is applied. But, because the Supreme Court already ruled it legal, the result would almost certainly be a free ID program. And let's be honest, this is something Democrats have desired for decades.

    If in fact people are having to travel 250 miles to get a voter ID in Washington, maybe that says more about Washington than it does about the ID law. I live in rural Wisconsin. There are at least 6 locations within 20 miles of me that I can get a voter ID. Bump that radius up to 50 miles and there's more like 20+ locations. It would be more, but some of that 50 mile radius includes another state and Lake Michigan.

    I agree that voter fraud is a very small amount. But, that shouldn't mean we pretend it doesn't exist.

    Do you know what the term negligible means? It means small enough that it's not significant and can be discounted on that basis. I am arguing the occurrence of voter identity fraud is small enough that there's no point addressing the issue because it's waste of time.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on What mechanical themes do you think will be in Amonkhet?
    Some predictions
    -Graveyard will be a major theme but not as big a one as with Innistrad.
    -Using -1/-1 counters as a cost/drawback to represent going through hazardous trials
    -The gods will not not feature the same devotion-to-become-a-creature mechanic, even if they feature devotion otherwise.
    -Bolas's presence will be minimal in this set, major point of second set is Bolas's arrival. Mechanical themes will highlight this
    -Gold tokens will appear in this set or the next to represent Egyptian treasures
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I can hardly see this interpretation ever working out. 'Any form of expression', that's easily arguable to be a massive percentage of all possible action, even all action. Speech, I would think, is about pure, direct communication. Writing out a vote is probably fair to consider speech, but what I am talking about does not compel anyone to speak any which way.


    I don't entirely disagree with you, but this is a matter of settled law. The US Supreme Court has ruled many times on what constitutes speech and invariably, they have ruled that nearly all expressions (or the prevention thereof) are examples of types of speech.

    Murder, assault, sexual assault and stealing are all oddly illegal then aren't they? Literally almost every possible action can be considered expression. You can't consider that freedom of speech. Speech is more than just any form of expression whatsoever.


    Quote from osieorb18 »

    Okay, can we also institute mandatory voter registration from birth that lasts until death or uncleared felony conviction, and voter IDs provided at no particular cost to any individual citizen with enough regularity that there is no conceivable way that any American citizen will show up to vote without their ID, even if they are homeless and penniless, and there's no conceivable way that any American citizen will not know that they have the option to show up to vote? Because most people who support voter ID laws appear to support them while not considering or while hoping for the huge disenfranchisement of a massive number of American citizens. I'm not saying that is the case for you, but common sense should be applied when making laws.

    Mandatory voter registration would probably be legal and acceptable as long as there was no cost involved, similar to the Selective Service law.

    Voter IDs are available at low-to-no-cost in every state. You shouldn't use a phrase like "no conceivable way" because no matter what scenario you create, there is a conceivable (though improbable) counter-argument.

    Seriously, who doesn't know when voting day is ?

    The voter disenfranchisement issue is 99% emotional overreaction, 1% real.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.d492055b3370

    "A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

    Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport"
    "A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
    "In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip."

    And voter identity fraud is 99% emotional overreaction, 1% real. It doesn't significantly affect any elections.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I think so. Democracy relies on people's views/interests actually being sufficiently represented among the candidates, else they have no choice that sufficiently represents them, and that goes against the point surely. With only two parties, which have only become increasingly polarised in rent years apparently, there will always be major sections of views and interests that aren't being represented. Third parties at least give a presence to more views and interests.
    Are you taking into account candidates in the primary election, or are you only talking about the candidates in the general election?

    Talking about both.

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I mean popular vote to determine the state vote. The states electoral college numbers could still be adjusted as they are now, but the state vote would be based directly on popular vote in that state.
    It already is. A candidate gets the state's EC votes directly by winning the popular vote. (Well, except in Maine and Nebraska, and ruling out faithless electors.)

    But the winner takes all. The electoral votes are given based solely on the final outcome of the popular vote, not directly on the popular vote itself. I'm talking about splitting up the vote amongst different candidates based on their results, as Kahedron was saying. My statement was in agreement of that being reasonable. Perhaps wasn't the best way of saying so.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    To continue with your cake metaphor, mandatory voting means you have to show up to the party,
    Explain how this is freedom, as opposed to the exact opposite of freedom.

    Because there are no government restrictions on freedom in the US?

    don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.

    Forced speech is not free speech. It gives the government power to force you to be somewhere. So yes, you are giving the government power it should not have

    Again, what about mandatory education? And what about prison?
    You aren't being forced in your speech, only participation in the process.

    Quote from jwf239 »
    As is, our system can only have two real parties.

    This mentality has always bothered me. Our system CAN and DOES have more than two parties. The reason we're regarded as a two party system for the presidency and most of Congress is because people by and large choose not to vote for any third party.

    But that's always going to be related to what the voting system is. As is, you can only put a vote for one. If you vote for a third party, you express no preference about the major two parties. Preferential voting allows you to do both. Why not give people that option?

    This is why this mindset of "fixing" the country by getting more third parties on the ticket doesn't make any sense. The reason third parties aren't a significant presence is because significant numbers of people aren't voting for them by volition. Restructuring voting is not going to make that much of a difference if no significant support base exists for them, because that's exactly how the government is supposed to work: if you have no significant base of support, you shouldn't have a shot at the presidency or a significant presence in Congress.

    But you are measuring support from the voting system. If the argument is the current voting system doesn't allow for sufficient third party support, then saying but they shouldn't get it because they don't have the support, that's just circular.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Preferential voting could help in increasing third party participation.
    Which would be different. Would it be better?

    I think so. Democracy relies on people's views/interests actually being sufficiently represented among the candidates, else they have no choice that sufficiently represents them, and that goes against the point surely. With only two parties, which have only become increasingly polarised in rent years apparently, there will always be major sections of views and interests that aren't being represented. Third parties at least give a presence to more views and interests.

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    How could Gerrymandering be practically restricted?

    Redraw district borders through a special bipartisan committee rather than through the legislating body.

    Ok, that sounds reasonable.

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I think having a popular vote also probably makes sense.

    For Californians and New Yorkers. Not so much for South Dakotans and Alaskans.

    Are you watching what's happening in the UK right now between England and Scotland? Scotland's less populous so it's getting dragged out of the EU against its will? That's an extreme example of the situation that the makeup of the United States Congress (which is what's being reflected in the Electoral College) was constituted to avoid. The interests of the diverse states carry a certain weight irrespective of their population, plus additional weight dependent on their population.

    I mean popular vote to determine the state vote. The states electoral college numbers could still be adjusted as they are now, but the state vote would be based directly on popular vote in that state.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from w03havoc »
    Instead I would like to see the US institute mandatory voter ID at the polls


    Okay, can we also institute mandatory voter registration from birth that lasts until death or uncleared felony conviction, and voter IDs provided at no particular cost to any individual citizen with enough regularity that there is no conceivable way that any American citizen will show up to vote without their ID, even if they are homeless and penniless, and there's no conceivable way that any American citizen will not know that they have the option to show up to vote? Because most people who support voter ID laws appear to support them while not considering or while hoping for the huge disenfranchisement of a massive number of American citizens. I'm not saying that is the case for you, but common sense should be applied when making laws.

    I would still oppose voter ID laws even with all that effort done to make sure honest people can meet the requirement, precisely because you'd have to go through all that effort to get the benefits of voter ID, and those benefits are negligible.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression.

    I can hardly see this interpretation ever working out. 'Any form of expression', that's easily arguable to be a massive percentage of all possible action, even all action. Speech, I would think, is about pure, direct communication. Writing out a vote is probably fair to consider speech, but what I am talking about does not compel anyone to speak any which way.


    Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. What is relevant is American Law which is as HPB stated. The act of voting and in some cases paying for something is regarded as a matter of speech. Which by the First Amendment is something that is constitutionally guaranteed.

    Does this mean that there are some rulings that would be odd to an outsider like the pair of us, yes but that is what has worked for them like wise they don't understand how you are happy with mandatory appearance at a voting booth.

    It does not mean that either situation is intriniscally better that the other just that they are different.

    But if it would be a violation of freedom of speech to mandate going to the polling both, then why isn't it a violation of freedom of speech to mandate education? The education system also involves people saying things as well. If that's illegal, why has been around for nearly a hundred years and no one is currently doing anything about it?
    And if the argument is voting is speech, why is a violation of your freedom of speech to restrict you to show up? You can vote in whatever way you like, including not voting. That's you exercising freedom of speech. Mandatory voting doesn't change what your options are in terms of voting except that not voting now involves casting a vote of sorts, just not a formal one that contains anything, not a vote anyone cares about except for the in that you went through the process. Not voting is still an option, it just involves a different process in order to meet the legal requirement.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.

    That's not really an answer.
    There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.

    So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.


    They are not equally good or equally bad. All of them have issues. And they can't all be applied to every country.

    With the US in particular which is effectively a 2 party state bar a couple of enterprising independants there is no point in having a nuanced poll as it is effectively a binary choice, vote Republican or vote Democrat.

    Preferential voting could help in increasing third party participation.


    In other countries which have more parties like the UK and you still vote for your representative yes it could be better if it was easier to rank the different parties if nothing else to reduce the number of safe seats that exist so the people aren't routinely ignored until elections come round, but that raises different problems as B_S alludes to.

    Likewise if you move away from voting directly for your representative you then surrender that power to the parties themselves and they are going to have vastly different criteria for selecting who they want to see in the Senate, House of Representatives than the voters. If you went to a form of Proportional Representation I would be very surprised is Bernie Sanders remained in the Senate as a true independant.


    The changes to the Voting system in the US that would have the biggest positive effect don't concern the actual mechanics of what you actually do in the voting booth. Its in all the background work that leads up to that point.

    1 and 2 of my suggestions are about the leading up to that point. 1 ensuring ability to go and 3 mandating that you go. Only 2 affects you the vote itself. I agree there is more things to consider, these are just three points, there are more ideas I could include.


    1. Make it easier to vote, either by making it a federal holiday or increasing the availablity of postal voting
    2. Standardised Identification rules across the Union. If a driving licence allows you to vote in Wyoming the same driversID should be acceptable in Texas.
    3. Reduce the amount of Gerrymandering to reduce the amount of safe seats. If the parties aren't guarenteed a seat year in, year out they should pay attention more.

    How could Gerrymandering be practically restricted?


    And then specifically for the Presidential election, stop the practice of winner takes all for allocating a states Electors instead allocate them according to the % gained in the popular vote.

    I think having a popular vote also probably makes sense.


    Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.

    Make what cheaper specifically?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
    That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.

    Why? Because with preferences you can specify not just your most preferred candidate, but how the rest rank behind them. That way a candidate can win of the most overall support from the population not just from the most people who prefer specifically them.


    If you had left it at a more general level you might have had a point. But you didn't you specified sorting out US elections where having a more nuanced voting system is utterly pointless. In most cases there are only going to be 2 names on the ballot. In putting your mark against one of them you have already ranked them by saying I like Person A more than Person B, forcing some one to right a number 1 against the one they vote for and a 2 against the other poor schmuck isn't going to make the choice any different it is just going to piss off the voter for no actual gain.

    To actually make a valid difference in the US you are going to need to make some fairly fundamental changes to the set up not just tinkering with what happens when you turn up as I stated in my first post. In effect what you are doing is demand that the US changes the curtains whilst the boiler is in imminent danger of blowing up (granted this is a little hyperbolic but you should get the general idea).

    In cases where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. But there are cases when preferential voting would apply, and I think it would be an improvement if it did.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
    On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.


    Education is once again, not a RIGHT. It's a governmentally mandated OBLIGATION.

    I do not consider that to be valid reasoning. That's just a statement. You can call it whatever you want- where's the facts?


    Quote from DJK3654 »

    3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
    So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
    Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.


    Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression. This would include writing or the prevention thereof. So being required to turn in a ballot, blank or not, is in effect a forced act of speech and therefore violates Free Speech laws.

    As far as your comparison with education, you're partly right. The US has not always had mandatory education. That was a creation of the Progressive movement. Instead of trying to argue against your point, I'll actually agree that there really isn't much of a difference. However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.

    And since it's been mentioned, there is a debate as to the legality of the Income Tax in the US. The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.

    Ok so then I have a problem with the law as it to pertains to all three then, doesn't matter to me. My concern is not whether they are legal, but how they compare to some of the principles that can be found in the law.

    I will so though

    Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression.

    I can hardly see this interpretation ever working out. 'Any form of expression', that's easily arguable to be a massive percentage of all possible action, even all action. Speech, I would think, is about pure, direct communication. Writing out a vote is probably fair to consider speech, but what I am talking about does not compel anyone to speak any which way.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    ...that people are supposed to participate in.
    False. People have the privilege of participating in it. You're not doing anything wrong if you choose not to vote, any more than you're doing something wrong if you choose not to eat cake on your birthday. The cake is a gift. You can do what you like with it. To make cake-eating mandatory is to utterly miss the point. In fact, it's even worse than that: voting is the foundation of your power over the government, so for the government to exercise its power to compel a vote is downright perverse.

    To continue with your cake metaphor, mandatory voting means you have to show up to the party, it doesn't mean you have to actually eat it. Informal votes are a thing.
    I don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    ...so if it can help, that's something.
    I have just pointed out that the empirical evidence suggests it doesn't help.

    I have just pointed out that turnout is itself important and it affects that. And your empirical evidence is heavily dependant on complex value analysis. It's going to take more than what you have given me so far to convince me it doesn’t help. It won't massively improve things, but I think it will help by promoting engagement with politics.

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good?
    No. But I don't think they make a significant practical difference. The same first-past-the-post voting system elected both Franklin Roosevelt and Donald Trump. The same parliamentary proportional system elected both Angela Merkel and Adolf Hitler. You are not going to improve the quality of governance by adding a few flourishes to the rules of the voting game.

    So some systems are better but it won'tmake any difference... because? If it's better, surely it's going to make some difference by definition?

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
    You shouldn't have to say "I think" here. This is an objective and testable hypothesis. Do the voter turnout data bear it out?

    That's going to be pretty hard to compare entitely different countries or multiple countries change across a significant time, while accounting for all the variables involved. For the purposes of this thread, that's a bit much with everything already going on. I'll have a bit of look later maybe for some papers or such.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.

    That's not really an answer.
    There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.

    So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Paying taxes is not a right, it is a responsibility.
    Sending your children to school is not a right, it is a responsibility.
    Voting is a right. When you make it a responsibility, it is no longer a right. You are proposing eliminating voting rights.

    It's not voting rights in terms of what people care most about with a vote- they actual voting process itself. But mandatory voting doesn't affect that. It only compels you to participate in that process.

    Compulsory taxation vastly improves a country's governmental performance. Look at the U.S. government 1776-1788 compared to the U.S. government post-1788.
    Compulsory education vastly improves a country's social and economic performance. Look at European society in the 18th Century compared to European society in the 20th.
    Compulsory voting does not vastly improve a country's political performance. Look Australian politics compared to German politics, or Argentine politics compared to Canadian politics, or Brazilian politics compared to Swedish politics.

    So when you're proposing violating the citizenry's civil rights, you can argue that it's just a teeny-tiny little violation, but even if it is, there's still no reason for doing it.

    Yes, there is. Because more people end up voting because of it. And voting is an essential part of the democratic process that people are supposed to participate in. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be at all helpful, but there are major issues with related issues to this, so if it can help, that's something. I don't think it's a very significant freedom for people to not even participate enough to even show up in an essential part of government process when they don't have a reason why they can't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »

    Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
    If I point a gun at you, and force you to go somewhere, and then force you to say something, I do not get to say that I didn't infringe on your rights if I gave you the choice as to what to say. Forced speech is not free speech.

    1. Death is a lot more severe than the penalties for mandatory voting
    2. You can be exempted if you have a valid reason
    3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
    So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
    Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.

    All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.

    No, a voting incentive is giving someone a sticker after they voted.

    Forcing someone to vote would be making it against the law not to vote. Guess what you're proposing?

    Except for the fact that in order to fulfill your legal obligation to vote, you don't have to actually properly vote, only turn in a ballot regardless of what, if anything, is written on it. So it's an incentive to actually properly vote because you don't really have the choice to just not show up.

    Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
    Appropriate, because the taxation is theft argument has always been demonstrative of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 buddy.

    And similarly, compelling people to show up to vote does not violate freedom of speech, just as compelling people to turn up to school doesn't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    Why is it important to get a vote from someone who does not want to vote? Or to make them drive out to a potentially out of the way location to prove that they don't wish to vote?

    Yes, basically (In my opinion the out of the way location is something that should be separately addressed in some cases). As I said earlier, the point is to stop people not voting because they can't be bothered to show up when they could and do have opinions.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Voting day on a weekend or a federal holiday
    Yes.

    This one is unsuprisingly popular. Good. Maybe we'll actually see it happen one day soon.

    The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
    That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.

    Why? Because with preferences you can specify not just your most preferred candidate, but how the rest rank behind them. That way a candidate can win of the most overall support from the population not just from the most people who prefer specifically them.


    Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)
    Definitely not.

    What a surprise.


    The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well
    In addition to how this so obviously violates the freedom of speech, I've always been appalled at the idea of any group of people lobbying for the government to threaten you to go vote, and then calling this in any way acceptable in a free society.

    Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
    On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from jeffbcrandall »

    2: I will disagree. I think the current pick one for each position is the best way to handle it (one person, one vote for one person in each position up for election, etc etc)

    I prepared opening cases for these ideas, please address them and give more of an actual reason why you disagree.


    3: 100% Disagree. I think change #1 would solve a lot of the issues with people not voting. Beyond that, as Blinking Spirit said, voting is a right not a responsibility. While I would love if every person took the time to go vote to make sure their voice was heard and (hopefully) had taken the time to become educated about the candidates before voting, I don't believe forcing people to vote is the answer. Forcing people to vote who don't care I think can actually do more harm than good, I would rather people who care to vote and are knowledgeable and care who they are voting for vote, if the rest don't want to vote then they should have the option not to, whether as a protest against a lack of good candidates or otherwise.

    As I said earlier, you don't have to actually put down a vote, but you do have to show up and cast one whether ot has anything on it or not. So if people don't want to vote in protest or don't feel confident, they still can, but they have to commit to that decision. Note here is that preference voting helps people vote on a more conflicted position. What mandatory voting does is mean people don't not vote simply because they can't be bothered to make the effort, not because they don’t have a vote they would cast.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US

    2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.

    That's not really an answer.

    3: No. Australia, I hate to break it to you, but you are violating your citizens' civil rights by making voting mandatory.

    The freedom argument. I specifically pre emptively addressed this. You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government. Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
    All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Three things I feel like the US could implement nation wide to improve its voting system.

    1. Voting day on a weekend or a federal holiday
    2. The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
    3. Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)

    Reasoning for each being

    1: People should not be denied the opportunity to vote because they cannot afford to take time of work to do so.
    2: If the vote is the voter's representation in government, they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list.
    3: Representative democracy relies on the people actually voting. It's too important of an issue to just leave to apathy and laziness. With a system like what I'm proposing, people can even still be apathetic and lazy, but they are at least given an incentive to take an interest if they have to make some kind of effort either way. The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well, unless it's not as important? Especially when paying taxes is a bigger deal than just showing up to vote once every four years.

    In particular to Americans, which of these points do you agree/disagree with and why?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Unison: The Planeswalker Teamwork Mechanic
    Overall impression is that this is too complex. Planeswalkers don't have much space for extra complexity.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on Atlazan IS Ravnica
    Quote from VaultTechy »
    I'm confused, it seems like the majority of people here are operating off the basis that Atlazan is confirmed. I think it's pretty clear given the source of the original image - for those who don't know, it's from a survey WotC made asking people their opinions of different pack design ideas - that Atlazan is a placeholder.

    Do people actually think WotC took something as important as an entire unannounced block, used the assets, cropped them up, mailed them to a few thousand people and used it as part of a survey literally asking people to study the presented assets, by accident? Does anyone know how painfully hard that would be to do by accident? Sorry but personally I think it's pretty rude to assume they're that dumb, and kind of disrespectful to the people making the game you play, right?

    I agree that 'Atlazan' may well not exist, but the art is from somewhere we haven't seen, and the aesthetic between the different arts is similar enough that it does seem likely to be from the same block. If it is, the block seems likely to be partly mesoamerican themed based on that aesthetic and the fact that the name choice might be related in some way.
    But yes, nothing is confirmed and it could just be a couple of unrelated arts with a basic block idea strapped to it for the survey.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on Atlazan IS Ravnica
    Interesting idea, but this seems like too drastic a change for Ravnica, and the 'Atlazan' art seems maybe a little too meso-american to bring into Ravnica.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on Spring and Summer Set: Amonkhet and Hour of Devastation
    Quote from nawillih »
    Quote from LG_ »
    Didn't WOTC state that Amonkhet had changed when the rotation got re-jigged?

    Highly suggest that would be mana base tweaking ie removal of fetches or duals. WOTC know how much a stable base is in standard, but between the BFZ lands and the new fast lands there likely wouldn't be many basic art played if they printed more duals.


    Temples wouldn't work well with the current Standard manabases - everything coming into play tapped would mean only the slowest decks would run all-dual bases IMO, and slow decks aren't exactly shredding the meta right now...

    We have the fastlands though. They have an ETB tapped part, but one that hits slower decks more, not fast ones. The shadowlands are also good in early game when you have a full hand.
    This considered, I could see the temples being in Amonkhet. It would promote slower decks than if they printed something like the painlands, but surely not obscenely so. And we have very little idea how slow the meta will be after Amonkhet's release, especially with the potential for bans (e.g. Felidar Guardian) before then.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Next ban announcement
    Quote from Hawk7915 »
    Safe bet I think:

    STANDARD: Ban Felidar Guardian
    - This card and the CopyCat Combo deck haven't put up insane, format-ruining numbers or anything but clearly its still a problem. Most pros seem to think it is strangling diversity out of the format. Like Emmy, the Combo is just so much better than any other long game you can muster which means fun Improvise-based Tezzeret decks just do nothing. As players keep refining, it seems like Combo (featuring early game Whirler Virtuoso pressure into lategame combo) versus Control (featuring tons of removal, gearhulks, and The Combo) will be the best decks in the format with only Mardu vehicles as a reasonable option. While that's a "balanced" meta from a standpoint of aggro, combo, and control all being viable and represented, it isn't balanced in that 2/3 of those decks will be using CopyCat as their endgame. Saheeli isn't really the problem and I imagine they're far more willing to ban the kitty then the marquee Planeswalker. What's more, the deck is in danger of just getting worse with Amonkhet. It is currently 4-color with consistency thanks to Aether Hub, Attune to the Aether, Oath of Nissa, and Servant of the Conduit, and so it can jam whatever busted thing it wants from the next set with little difficulty.

    I think that will happen with absolute certainty.

    Additional bans are tough. Clearly Mardu Vehicles is a nasty deck, and a "perfect draw" from it on the play (1-drop into two-drop into Removal into Gideon) is nigh-unbeatable. I could absolutely see them banning Scrapheap Scrounger, Heart of Kiran, or Walking Ballista (in roughly that order of likelihood) to wound but not cripple the deck. I can also easily see them doing nothing to this deck since they wouldn't want to further punish people who bought into Vehicle Aggro and Heart of Kiran at least can't be played in multiples and has a real deckbuilding cost to it. I also see a possibility of banning Aether Hub for enabling too easy a splash, banning Saheeli AND Cat, banning Scrounger AND Ballista, and banning Gideon as a card that will prevent Amonkhet cards from making a real impact. But, again, I think the only sure-thing is that Guardian is getting the hammer.

    I don't foresee any bans anywhere else. Seems premature to ban Death's Shadow after its first big outing so Modern should be safe. I don't think anything will be unbanned either.


    This seems like a really good prediction to me. Only exception is I don't think Guardian ban is a certainty, although it does seem very, very likely.
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • 0

    posted a message on Random Card: Sacrifice Flicker Variant
    Quote from Creedmoor »
    I like the effect, but it almost feels like it needs flash or something to give it a defensive use. I guess in a blink deck you'll have a way to abuse it along those lines, but as it stands it seems like you need to have the board presence to make it work.

    It's intended to be used in a deck with a good board presence as a finisher. It can do defense using lifelink and by triggering defensive abilities with the flicker effect.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on Random Card: Sacrifice Flicker Variant
    Quote from saneatali »
    It should be phrased "... then return those cards from the graveyard to the battlefield under your control." to avoid confusion in the case that tokens are sacrificed.

    Do you know of any precedent for this?
    EDIT: Nvm, Brago, King Eternal, Displace and Eerie Interlude should cover it.

    A 5/7 flying lifelink is quite the powerhouse creature even without the added effect,all together I feel like you've got a 7-mana card here. I know the 7 mana is a spot usually avoided, so if you really want to keep it at 6 cost, I think shaving down the the power/toughness just a bit is all that you need. I'm thinking a 5/5 or a 4/7.
    At worst, the ability is a selective flicker, quite powerful but not inherently broken, a good build-around card. The fact that it lets you gain the benefits of on-death effects in addition to what normal flickering does makes it very interesting and more flexible, but also vulnerable to some types of graveyard hate.

    My intention is to push it to see how high the ceiling is for the effect. 5/6 or 5/5 is probably a more balanced estimate.

    I would make it an Archon rather than an Incarnation with that name and artwork though. Incarnations in Magic are generally physical embodiments of concepts or emotions, whereas Archons are hooded magical beings riding upon great flying steeds, which is very much what you've got going on here.

    It's to do with the world idea this is from. Spirits and elements, and particularly incarnations, are a big thing there. Archon is probably a good fit with that though, even if it misses some tribal synergies that I will probably include, so it's definitely something to consider.
    I could do Archon Incarnation or Incarnation Archon alternatively to both play up the incarnation side to Archons and to allow tribal.

    All-in-all I quite like it, a creative variant on an existing concept, good job and kudos.

    Smile
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on Random Card: Sacrifice Flicker Variant
    Something for a bit of an experimental set.
    Card is supposed to be a finisher to combine with death trigger effects mainly, mixing in leaves the battlefield, enters the battlefield and other interactions.

    Elder Nightwatcher ( 4 mana white mana black mana )
    Creature- Incarnation (R)
    Flying, lifelink
    When Elder Nightwatcher enters the battlefield, sacrifice any number of other creatures, then return them from the graveyard to the battlefield under your control.
    5/7

    Main Questions:
    -How powerful is this effect?
    -Is everything done right in terms of the wording and rules?

    All credit to artist Rafael Tereul for art in the render.

    Thanks for reading
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 1

    posted a message on Gods of Amonkhet
    Quote from Gutterstorm »
    Quote from blackcat1300 »


    Why would it be Anubis and not his father Set/Seth. The deity of the desert and war? You know the one how killed his brother Osiris. This could make her red not black. Also they could be indestructible artifact/creature that have a similar mechanic to the Gods of Theros.


    I'm pretty sure I clearly explained why it would be closest to Anubis. Player expectation. I'd wager that if you took the picture of that god to a random on the street, said, "this is from Egyptian mythology. Who/what is it?" They'd reply with Anubis. If the average person made a top five Egyptian gods list Anubis would not only be on it he'd be on top of it. like sure the people really into Egyptian mythology would probably love a call out to Set but the average person wouldn't get it. That was the problem with Kamigawa. the same way people in the know would tell you that Krakens on Theros was wrong but thanks to Clash of the Gods the average person thinks that krakens were Greek in origin. Like sure, if they decide to do these multicolor they could throw in aspects of Set if the Jackal ends up in red as well since they're more than likelygoing to be mix'n'matching the Egyptian gods the way they did with the Greek gods on Theros.

    The average person knows almost nothing about Anubis though other than appearance and he's associated with death. So you can fill in a lot of space there with other references. Set's character, actually, is probably closer to the average person's expectation of Anubis than the actual Anubis.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Mad Mat »
    I so tried to avoid posting here anymore because the amount of time (I don't have right now) and frustration (I can't afford right now) it takes to answer Highroller posts, but this is just too much:

    Quote from Highroller »

    So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.


    No, the question would be: do you believe that one side has the superior claim? And I don't know the answer to that question, although I don't believe it to be as easy as you both claim.
    That is Mad Mat disagreeing with me that the anti-genocide-against-anyone-not-white side has a superior argument over the pro-genocide side. That's not a distortion. That's not me twisting his words. That's what he actually argued, in his own words.

    Now, do you agree with that? Because that's what I've been trying to explain to you, if you believe that not-genocide has a superior argument over pro-genocide, then you do not agree with Mad Mat.

    This interpretation of my answer to your question only works if you assume racism is the same as genocide, which is simply not true. This is absolutely a distortion of what I have said.

    To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Ljoss »
    I agree with Highroller's approach here that if you think someone/something is racist you should say so, and not necessarily worry about how that might make one feel. Unfortunately, though, I think this word - racist - is becoming increasingly less meaningful and, consequently, you should be ready to explain what you mean by that and why it's a problem. I also believe that Highroller has done a pretty good job of that in this thread.

    I agree. Racism should absolutely be called out, but, as you say, you need to be able to explain. I would add I think there should be more explaining done upfront and less just throwing the accusation at people. It's not something you should use lightly, and the complexity of these issues in the modern world warrants careful consideration of detail, and people to be upfront about that detail or it isn't well heard.

    Even more so, you need to be considerate that someone can do or say some racist thing without being deeply racist, or racist at all. True intentions don't always carry well, especially when the conservation becomes as polarised as it has, and you get caught out saying something you didn't mean or didn't understand. Or simply fall victim to a lapse in judgement and be a little prejudiced. It's certainly not good, but it's not the same as a genuine passionate belief in the supremacy of the white race or something.
    Which is all to say- racism itself is truly abhorrent, but people involved in it aren't necessarily. It weakens the message about truly abhorrent racist people to throw everyone who says anything racist under the exact same bulldozer. Some are a LOT closer to being perfectly good people.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Why continue to live if you will eventually die?
    Quote from AzureDuality »
    I could philosophize a more nuanced and defensible argument, but here's a simple point:


    If life is so miserable that death seems superior, you're doing it wrong.


    That could not be a more incorrect statement. That implies there is an objectively "best" way to live, which there isn't. It also doesn't explain how despite how much worse off our ancestors were they still decided to stick around. I think it's the fear of death that keeps us from choosing the alternative to living, not to mention how many religions punish suicide.

    As for the cake, it can be argued that there is no point to eating it just like there is no point to making it. It's assuming life has an inherent value by living it when it really does not. It simply is. Living it does not give it value, it's merely acting according to biology. Eating the cake doesn't give it value either, the very act of consumption does not give value. Whether it goes bad or remains stale, it still has no value.

    Any value you believe to be given is given by you alone. Nothing else GIVES it value. Not the experiences, not the taste, but you. Those other factors simply are. They are little more than sensory data taken in by you, and you determine whether they have value to you.

    So NO. The value of life is what you assign to it and nothing else.

    Your problem here is treating humans as fully conscious and free willed beings, when in fact most of who we are and much of what we do is not at all under our control. Case in point, you can't simply decide not to care. We are all innately afraid of death and innately drawn to value life. We wouldn't survive very well as a species if we didn't. Yes, obviously this isn't absolute, but there's nothing to gain trying to go against it or letting yourself drift away from it, only pain and suffering before you die. Yes, sometimes life can be pretty close to death, but that's only the reason why you have to work to make life enjoyable. You don't have anything else.
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 2

    posted a message on Why continue to live if you will eventually die?
    Quote from AzureDuality »
    Why stall the inevitable? I mean, if life is about preventing suffering as much as possible then wouldn't death be the best way of doing that? It seems to me a puzzling aspect of life, that it continues to propagate despite the fact that it will end soon is rather confounding.

    Preventing suffering is not good in-and-of-itself. Suffering is only important because of what it counters- and that is living a fulfilling, enjoyable and meaningful life. Dying to prevent suffering misses the point of why we don't want to suffer.
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Not saying there'll be no laws but there will not be a coercive monopoly on violence. Disputes would be resolved through common law.

    What does common law mean in an anarchy? Because common law is by definition linked to a centralised public judiciary. When there are multiple judiciaries in competition, how on earth does precedent work? What reason do judiciaries have to be consistent with each other? Wouldn't they want to be inconsistent so as to compete? Who says they have to even be consistent with themselves?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Runin- Norse mythology set (221/249*) -in playtesting
    How is it going with that set? Done any playtesting yet? Also, is there maybe a picture gallery somewhere or are you still looking for pictures?

    I've done a little playtesting. And I'm still looking for pictures.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on How President Trump's Trade Agenda Could Effect the Entertainment Industry
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Trump's most disastrous policy change in the entertainment, media, and tech sectors is eliminating Net Neutrality. And of course, his habit of labeling reputable news sources "fake news" while privileging the fringiest of fringe sources with first question at press conferences.
    How much of our liberties and freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for the safety of our own country in an age where radical Islamic terrorists taking advantage of the free and open exchange of the Internet has made the world less safe than it's ever been before?

    I cannot begin to express how wrong that statement is.
    Medicine is better, nutrition is better, most people are never involved in armed conflict.

    I mean, I suppose one could take an alarmist view on nuclear weapons, and then say that the world is unsafe? But depending on the frame of reference, that's not even particularly recent.

    Nuclear weapons have been actually used only once and it is widely regarded as at least a tragedy to have to had to do, and at a worst a horrible mistake.
    They aren't a significant threat any time for the forseeable future. There's little reason to ever use them. Their existence is more threatening than their use.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on How President Trump's Trade Agenda Could Effect the Entertainment Industry
    Trump's most disastrous policy change in the entertainment, media, and tech sectors is eliminating Net Neutrality. And of course, his habit of labeling reputable news sources "fake news" while privileging the fringiest of fringe sources with first question at press conferences.
    How much of our liberties and freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for the safety of our own country in an age where radical Islamic terrorists taking advantage of the free and open exchange of the Internet has made the world less safe than it's ever been before?

    I cannot begin to express how wrong that statement is.
    Medicine is better, nutrition is better, most people are never involved in armed conflict.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    You are the only person to bring up Hitler/the Nazis in the past three pages of the thread (posts from this year).

    Can you provide recent citations or sound reasoning for this list of statements and implications in your post?

    • Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of bombing Yemen.
    • Trump is compared to Hitler because of the temporary ban on Yemeni immigration.
    • People are saying en masse that the hijab is a symbol of female liberation.
    • People are saying en masse that Western Christianity is repressive.
    • Mexico has communicated that it can't do anything about the US/Mexico border.
    • Mexico has shown particular recent concern for its southern border.
    • Practically everyone in NATO hasn't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades.
    • Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist.
    • Trump is treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to do.
    • Leftists have been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
    I'd also like to call out the comparison between subjective morality to "alternative facts", a label that's applied to something objective.

    Plenty of people believe morality is objective as well though.
    While there are certainly people who believe morality is objective, Ljoss said "moral and cultural relativism", which is subjective by definition.

    Exactly. I think he is trying to say moral and cultural relativism is like alternative facts in distorting the objective truth.
    I don't think they are quite comparable IMO.
    EDIT: Even more so if you consider that, as I think, 'alternative facts' is not an honest idea, whereas relativism is.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Quote from Jay13x »
    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life.


    Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.

    Not if, as the notion you just responded to states, the original dropping of prices killed the competition. New competition has to spend a lot of time and work to arise, and as soon as it becomes threatening, the monopoly can drop prices again and kill them, and because they have an established dominance of the market they can afford to drop their prices much more than still developing competitors. So people stop trying to compete because it's commercial suicide.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    I'm not fiddling. I'm asking reasonable questions like "what has he done?" and getting Hitler comps as answers.

    Obama bombs Yemen, wins Nobel Peace Prize. Trump places temporary ban on Yemeni immigration and he's Hitler. You see how this is difficult to take seriously? Meanwhile, the hijab is a symbol of female liberation and Western Christianity is repressive, Mexico is telling the U.S. that it can't do anything about its porous southern border all the while Mexico itself sure as heck is concerned about its southern border, NATO is whining about the U.S. being a poor ally when practically everyone besides the U.S., U.K. and Poland haven't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades, Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist just because he's treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to and leftists are outraged at the phrase "alternative facts" after they've been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.


    You are the only person to bring up Hitler/the Nazis in the past three pages of the thread (posts from this year).

    Can you provide recent citations or sound reasoning for this list of statements and implications in your post?

    • Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of bombing Yemen.
    • Trump is compared to Hitler because of the temporary ban on Yemeni immigration.
    • People are saying en masse that the hijab is a symbol of female liberation.
    • People are saying en masse that Western Christianity is repressive.
    • Mexico has communicated that it can't do anything about the US/Mexico border.
    • Mexico has shown particular recent concern for its southern border.
    • Practically everyone in NATO hasn't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades.
    • Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist.
    • Trump is treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to do.
    • Leftists have been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
    I'd also like to call out the comparison between subjective morality to "alternative facts", a label that's applied to something objective.

    Plenty of people believe morality is objective as well though.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Xeruh »
    I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn't think it'd be as bad as it's been. It hasn't even been a week and it's spiraling so badly out of control. It really makes me wonder how exactly the next four years are going to have any silver lining when it comes to the government short of open revolt.


    How is this bad? It's pretty awesome so far. He's doing basically the same things that almost every other POTUS candidate would have done but in funnier ways. For example, exposing steaming pile of garbage Buzzfeed and their fake news pals.

    The only legitimate fake news point Trump has had was the 'dossier' posted by Buzzfeed and that was only unconfirmed and said as much in the article. It was really more irresponsible than 'fake news'.
    Instead, Trump is now currently calling various major news sources fake news for reporting correctly on the inauguration and not presenting the totally fabricated attendance numbers than Spicer is pushing. Which is not only petty, but incredibly manipulative. He's trying to undermine the media so he can control the story with his name recognition and emotional appeal.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/all-of-this-space-was-full-a-photographic-fact-check/514253/
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824078417213747200
    So there's that.

    AND there's the fact that Trump is already making major moves to push back against climate change research and sustainability efforts, including signing gag orders to stop various agencies from talking about climate change, which is a blatant instance of censorship.
    http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823950814163140609
    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Energy_ _Oil.htm

    So yeah, that's why people are worried.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from italofoca »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from italofoca »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Typho0nn »



    Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.

    Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.

    All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
    Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.


    It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.

    That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.


    They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
    The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.


    But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.

    You can define wellbeing (collective wellbeing is referring to basically just the average wellbeing of people in a state) without defining a political philosophy. The question of what wellbeing means is ethical not political, and doesn't define any particular political viewpoint.

    The communists, inside their own philosophy, did not make things worse as "irrational" consumption is not what they consider wellbeing. For then, for example, simply eliminating unemployment by the virtue of being a planned economy made life better for everyone.

    Wellbeing is a fairly practical affair. You can put fairly simple measurements to it because it's pretty much just subjective individual experience- being healthy, being emotionally and intellectually fulfilled, being relatively safe- things that can be measured or otherwise analysed at fairly high level.
    You don't get to decide what makes people happy, healthy or comfortable.

    To make my point very clear - I challenge the existence of a non-political definition of society's wellbeing.

    I am not talking about society's wellbeing- I am talking about the personal wellbeing of the people in a society.

    They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
    These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.


    The problem had gone as far as they did because solutions are hard to come up and once you have then they are hard to implement. We don't change things because we know they aren't working - we change then because we believe we found better alternatives.

    They put tens of thousands people in forced labour camps for political dissent or lack of work ethic and letting the camps be run often largely people imprisoned there.
    How do you stop all the suffering that occurred as a result? Stop putting so many people into intentionally deplorable conditions. It's a prison system, it's designed to cause some amount of suffering.
    (That wasn't all they did though)

    There is plenty of concern for people's welfare in the current Cuban government - as they always are in most government offices. The issue is not that bureaucrats are heartless, it's that they don't know what to do. And no one knows to be honest.

    I'm not saying all forms of communism government have, at least, the same extent of problems as the Soviet Union did.

    Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.


    My take is that things are not that simple.

    All I'm saying is socialistic policies have had beneficial effects in various modern countries and the European social democracy countries are a good example to show this because they have a large number of socialistic policies.
    I'm not saying here that socialistic policies always improve things or that the European social democracy countries are better than other countries because of it.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from italofoca »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Typho0nn »


    I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.

    And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.


    Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.

    Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.

    All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
    Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.


    It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.

    That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.

    The communists cannot be in fault for caring more about their idea of society then some group of individuals because that's what every political party do.

    They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
    The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.

    Their fault was not lack of empathy or social apathy, but underestimating the role freedom of speech, thought, trade and enterprise play in human development.

    They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
    These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.

    Modern day socialism is expanding because it recognizes those things and even claim to actively promote then (if this claim holds is sort of the central political debate of our age).

    Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the Bible's way of salvation correct?
    Quote from Stairc »
    Quote from jaredpeyton »
    What do you guys believe about salvation? I Read articles such as http://biblereasons.com/salvation-and-being-saved/. This is really getting to me. I've been thinking about life and the afterlife lately. Does Jesus save us? Has anyone else thought about this stuff? Looking for opinions. Thanks for anything you can share.


    Fortunately, there is no compelling reason to believe that an afterlife exists. All our experience indicates that a person's mind and identity is dependent on and determined by their physical brain. You don't exist before your brain develops. Taking brain damage can radically change a personality. You can lose a limb and keep on living, but destroy the brain and it's all gone.

    We're pretty clearly software and the brains are our hardware. Destroy the hard drive of a computer and ask if the data that lived on it goes to an afterlife. Obviously there's no reason to think so, and it would invalidate our understanding of how things work.

    This shouldn't be troubling, unless you live in terror of your memories of how it felt to not exist for billions and billions of years. I personally don't remember that experience as being too troubling.

    The fear of dying is not just about not existing though- it's about stopping existing. That doesn't happen around you being born, but it does happen when you die.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on Maneuver
    I think the ability should be primary green/white, secondary blue. Blue is more allowed to get pump than I think red and black are allowed to untap things in this way. The flavour of it is fairly blue as well.
    I'm not sure exactly what role this mechanic is supposed to fill.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Combo player's comment here
    Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for, and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.

    Actually sounds to me like he's saying democrats are losing voters because the party is becoming increasing left, not because the party isn't left enough for voters.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.