So yes to 1st/2nd/3rd voting, but I'd keep the college

I'm not saying get rid of the college, just make it so they have to actually pay attention to their states' voting

gcpgrey has some good videos on voting systems and that's where I got most of this concept

That's a self correcting issue. If a candidate can't be trusted, don't vote for them next time

maybe so, but it seems like an oversight IMO

it opens the door for lazy thinkers to let people stay in power

I don't think that can be designed out without getting authoritarian

the people who want to get rid of the Electoral Colleges are the people who think that City Dwellers are the only ones who can be trusted to be smart enough to vote. That is what the last election taught us.

I have to study up on my electoral college stuff, but it just worries me how far away from the actual election it feels like the population is

and I'll fully admit I'm a city dweller who wasn't really educated much in the point of the college, so... meh

Most states require the colleges to reflect the county vote or the state overall vote. and those are laws that can get the collegates fired and jailed if they violate them

Hence why Comrade Mickeal Moore was offering to pay the fines and legal fees of Collegates to not vote in accordance with the state popular vote (Trump)

I'm very confused about my 5 minute google search about the electoral college

because it seems disingenuous and deceitful to me

Remmember the College was established in the 1790's

How is it either, @GoldenPhoenix ?

A national vote could take months to just to count. So to consolidate and speed it up, The College was formed to take local results and vote up in a smaller more manageable forum and then again up the chain until it was delivered to the Feds as one simple result

It also ensures that regions get properly represented, rather than having 4 cities run the country via bulk votes

Yep, it gives me in Bumble fuck west Texas as great a voice as the asshats in LA, NYC, SF or Chi-raqi

not in what it does, but in how it's formed and all that

apparently it's party tied and voted for by the general election rather than the presidency itself, despite the population making the choice between the candidates, not the representatives

According to my 10 minutes on the internet

So who thinks the Generation Identy stole there logo from Overwatch and who thinks OW stole their logo from GI? Niether https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Lambda+in+circle&atb=v147-6&iax=images&ia=images

Who was first?

GI came first - around 4 Years

So OW stole it from GI

there is no way that GI could have stolen it from OW without Time Travel

Half life used the Lambda years ago, and the borroque era artistis used the Lambda on a Hopis as well

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Peace_sign.svg/1200px-Peace_sign.svg.png

that's where they could have stolen it from

http://picclick.com/oif-veteran-military-patch-operation-iraqi-freedom-iraq-231542425778.html

you never know, time travel is always a possibility

you know tim pool brings up an interesting point, and while i don't think that it is anything new, it raises to me an idea that could be something new if anyone decided to back it.

the left wing activists are a large group (relatively speaking) of loud people that show up around the feet of different businesses supporting other businesses through advertising and make themselves appear to be consumers of their products who are threatening to remove themselves as customers of businesses. this tactic is very effective because these activists don't need to actually be consumers of a product for very long or even prove they are consumers they simply need to band together against a product with an ultimatum even if they are just bluffing.

there isint a version of this on the right side of politics, for good reason, we understand this tactic is indecent and underhanded, its against the conservative idea of principles to engage in dishonest activism, and in recent years the lack of honest activism has begun to make the conservative seem to be a nonexistent group to the eye of business. however there's something the conservative could do, a mirror of this tactic which does not rely upon underhanded and dishonest methods. what conservatives could do is organize mass promotion toward advertisers to sponcer products while also counter boycotting companies that do not act in their political favor. now this last action is something we do see a bit of in conservative activism but its very mild still. i think the combined effort working on both sides and actually providing a service to advertisers to actually express to them that the conservative does still exist and have opinions could help spark a growth in both methods. organized action is key though.

I've been saying something similar for over a year now. People just make excuses. The real issue is that the non-left is very good at grousing online and exceedingly bad at *doing* anything. We do a good job arguing with each other about cryptocurrency, but no one NO ONE ever discusses things that can be done to turn the tide. Worse, people make up silly little phrases like 'get woke, go broke' or 'the pendulum always returns back' that essentially excuses the speaker from having to actually DO anything--if we just sit and wait 'the market will restore things to normal.'

Well, I've been saying the center-left and center-right seriously need to organize and start fighting dirty for over a year now. Back when I started here the line was "the social justice warriors are looking crazy, losing the middle and signing their own grave." You don't hear that now. Why? because they aren't losing.

Which gets us to this latest round with Carlson. The left knows *every single* advertiser on that show. Just look at Media Matters, they keep lists. And then they share with Sleeping Giants, who share with /r/politics, who share with Tumblr...Meanwhile, Gamergate can't even keep a straight list of which websites to get reviews from. Buycotts, as you're proposing would work in the short term, but it's likely that companies would just play both sides: benefit from the buycott in the short term, but yield to media matters once the attention dies down.

-

More to the point, how many lefties do you know with 20+ bumper stickers on their car? How many righties?

The fact is that the right, and particularly the centrists, **suck** at activism. And there needs to be a serious discussion on how to change that. When Jacobin met success, it launched a new journal. A journal explicitly devoted to 'praxis' and 'tactics.' Have you ever heard of a righty even begin to discuss 'tactics'? And then is it a real surprise that the left manages more effective activism? that things slowly manage to shift left time after time and institution after institution goes increasingly radical? It's not just a matter of "they yield to the noisy mob" it's that the far left knows how to create a noisy mob. And extract concessions, particularly from the center left--"I didn't vote for Trump but" is a pretty nice way to condition people into dismissing Trump, and really anyone to the right, out of hand immediately. ("you have to hate trump to have a seat at this table")

Gamergate is still roundly and routinely demonized, particularly by the left. The tactics were the exact same as is happening now. So why condemn gamergate so hard? Because it was the first time the left got stung with it's own medicine so it is salting the fields to that it will never happen again. They want complete control of the culture and society. When you are forced to sing the praises of Social Justice and whatever else the activists decide to buy food and all resistance is disorganized, that's complete victory for the most intolerant minority

-
tl;dr. the right, and particularly the centrists should have learned to organize yesterday. The left knows *how* to do it, but people are too self-congratulatory and lazy to actually do anything and so the radical left wins time and time again.

Buycotts will work int he short term, but ultimately, people will need to take the fight to Sleeping Giants and Media Matters.

when you say "take the fight to ___" what tactic are you proposing? i also suggest that the right do not use the same tactics the left employ, nor whatever this "fight dirty" you mentioned implys. if the lefts tactics are the only tactics that can work, they've already won, you cant beat an expert at their own game, simply trying gives them an advantage because once they've seen your going to play their game they can then get on top of that and start taking you seriously tactically, currently they don't do that.

i've proposed 2 tactics, the counter boycott which is mostly defensive, which your right only works short term and its mostly damage control because it wont always work. ive also proposed promotion directly toward advertisers and companies on the behalf of voices they agree with. this tactic is a bit harder for conservatives to get behind because it seems to be against the laissez faire of the market that is almost a religion in some conservative circles but i personally think that shit should be fought against itself and if anything this tactic is a positive one rather than a negitive one as the left often utilizes.

problem with the "high road" ideology: IF the left was the first to "fight dirty" (depending on your definitions), then whatever tactics they are using give them an inherent advantage, otherwise they wouldn't use it. We (the rest of the political spectrum) are all fighting a catch-up game trying to make up for the disadvantage we now have that they've imposed on us. If there's a "morally superior" solution, that would be optimal, since the far left's idea is to claim we're immoral and thus discredit our whole ideology based on that one strawman premise. Short of that, we might have to engage in the same tactics just to balance the scales. This isn't a game, this is ideological combat for the basic fabric of society. Games are meant to be played, and have rules. Combat is meant to be won, and we're not doing a good job of that (I hate using us V them rhetoric, but that's really what it comes down to).

we do have an advantage, however. We didn't cheat first. they've trapped themselves. How many times have we seen them using underhanded tactics? if we can document and provide evidence of it happening, then when they come railing against us claiming "That's not fair, you're cheating at the political game" we have legitimate evidence that they're calling themselves out as well. Do I think we should use EVERY tactic the left uses? absolutely not, some are so bad that they should be completely demonized and avoided, but if they're not going to fight on the debate floor and would rather demolish the building, why are we still standing at the podium with a wrecking ball flying at our heads?

the problem with the problem with the "high road" ideology is it implys your opponents chose not to take it and implys its your choice to be on it as well. that thought in itself muddys the waters in terms of finding an effective tactic in politics because the conservative group are high road by their very nature. its not a choice by conservatives to take the high road its our culture, in order to be a conservative your natural tendency are toward honesty and decency, anyone who argues otherwise has a shit ton of evidence to bulk against and the only examples of the otherwise would be political groups who only masquerade as conservative in the eye of the majority conservatives.

and yes of course the left wouldn't be fighting dirty unless it was the most advantageous tactic for them, that doesn't mean its the most advantageous strategy in a the larger scale, it may be for the left (it might not even be for the left) but theres certainly no guarantee that the right betraying its natural instincts would then manage to compete the same way as the left does especially when theres no expectation of them to do so (and you might argue surprises are good but theres incredible difference between being surprised and disappointed)

what are these underhanded tactics either of your are proposing? your proposing a stratagy not a tactic, your suggesting what we need to do is act differently without giving a how, and i stand by my assertion that the novice doing something they are reluctant to do will spectacularly fail at attempting to play the master's game. as for the suggestion that taking the high road is an immature perspective on the politicultural war i believe thats your own inherent bias coming through mixed with left wing propaganda from the world wars and the us military strategy from that point on word (which hasent been effective btw). that idea that is all is fair in love and war, which fails to address what your actually fighting for, the means do not always justify the ends when the means is what your actually fighting to save. to sacrifice your principles in such a conflict is to lose in a different fashion.

the high road does one great thing for you politically so long as you manage to maintain a voice in politics, it keeps you from making a retard out of yourself. this is why i propose tactics that dont make the conservatives look like tards even if they fuck it up, sure its playing safe but its also playing to their strength.