Great question. It depends. If I know the other restaurant to be terrible, then yeah, I'll role the dice on a new one which could or could not be equally terrible.
Trump & Hillary
- Thread starter chick_bleeds_carolina_blue
- Start date
Great question. It depends. If I know the other restaurant to be terrible, then yeah, I'll role the dice on a new one which could or could not be equally terrible.
We KNOW Hillary's restaurant sucks and many could die there.
We KNOW the service is the worst ever at Trump's and you will be forced to eat what he thinks you should eat or it will piss him off and he will ban you from coming back.
We aren't sure about Johnson's yet but we hear he gave great service in the past to a few and he seems like a reasonable, honest man. Should I try eating there or just stick with the other two that I'm sure will be disappointing????
I think the more accurate use of this analogy would be:
You have to choose one of the restaurants to eat at (by voting for that restaurant). Either one of the two popular but crappy ones, or the new one no one has ever heard of. Everyone will eat at the restaurant that gets the most votes.
So are you gonna vote for the new restaurant and watch the vote go to the crappier of the two crappy restaurants... or are you gonna vote for the less crappy restaurant that actually has a chance at winning in the hopes that you don't have to eat at the crappier restaurant?
See this makes sense because everyone gets the same president.. the one who wins the election. If everyone could choose their own president, then sure - vote for the one you like the best. But when only one president can be chosen, and only two have a chance... it makes sense to vote for the better of those two.
You have to choose one of the restaurants to eat at (by voting for that restaurant). Either one of the two popular but crappy ones, or the new one no one has ever heard of. Everyone will eat at the restaurant that gets the most votes.
So are you gonna vote for the new restaurant and watch the vote go to the crappier of the two crappy restaurants... or are you gonna vote for the less crappy restaurant that actually has a chance at winning in the hopes that you don't have to eat at the crappier restaurant?
See this makes sense because everyone gets the same president.. the one who wins the election. If everyone could choose their own president, then sure - vote for the one you like the best. But when only one president can be chosen, and only two have a chance... it makes sense to vote for the better of those two.
Which one has the white sauce? That stuff is great.
[redacted by mods]
Seriously if we WERE just talking about restaurants, you're telling us that given the choice of two KNOWN crappy ones versus one not yet known, people will pick one of the crappy ones because they know more about them even negative????
Because that would be crazy. I know in our analogy we are talking about Pete and RePete vs a not well established big stage politician but dang!
No. What I'm saying is I would pick the less crappy of the two restaurants that had a chance to win this little hypothetical election/contest. Since I'm smart enough to realize that picking the unknown restaurant would be throwing my vote away, because in my scenario (which matches the presidential election scenario) everyone has to eat at the restaurant that receives the most votes. So at that point if there were only two choices that had a chance of winning - I would choose the less crappy of the two.
As I said, if me picking the unknown restaurant meant I got to eat there regardless of what everyone else voted - yes I would obviously do that. But the fact of the matter is that there can only be one president... it's not like everyone can just pick whichever president they want to be their president.
But we really don't pick the president because we aren't in the electoral college. I'm not sure I really like that system anyway so I guess we all essentially waste our votes unless I'm confused about that process. I know they SHOULD vote the way the people vote but they don't have to. Isn't that how it works??
I'll have to watch it again but isn't that what happened with the Bush-Gore issue in the movie "Recount"? Which I believe was an accurate portrayal of the actual event.
You just replied to yourself. That's an automatic 1-day ban. Sorry, board rules.
Yes, you did. As your board ally, I was going to point it out, but I knew someone else would beat me to it.I did not
The restaurant analogy has now caved-in on itself.
))))gnashing teeth(((((
"Must... vote... Democrat or Re---pub---lican..." (exhales)
))))gnashing teeth(((((
"Must... vote... Democrat or Re---pub---lican..." (exhales)
Well yes, this is true about the electoral college. It's not really a wasted vote though if you vote for someone with a chance (although as has been pointed out no election ever comes down to 1 vote so I guess no singular vote is necessary/important/impactful). They're supposed to vote according to how the voters vote in their state, but they don't technically have to. Not really sure why they even have the middle men in there - unless it's just to make sure they have a stop gap to rig the election if they need to.
I thought the restaurant analogy had some legs. You don't have to vote Dem or Repub... you can vote whoever you want. Or not vote at all.
All I'm saying is that there's two people that have a chance at getting an electoral college vote in this race, let alone that only two have a chance of winning the race. So therefore anyone that wants to have any sort of impact on the race (which, lets be honest is so incredibly minute as 1 vote out of hundreds of millions), would need to vote for one of those two people. A vote for anyone else has 0% chance of affecting (did I use that word right this time grammar guys?) the race.
I guess blame it on the media that only 2 people have a chance in this one. I'd certainly love to see Johnson have a chance in the race - but it's just not happening. Even though Johnson may very well be the best candidate out there... a vote for him is akin to writing in "Mickey Mouse". They both have the same chance of winning.
Sometimes, I think it would be ideal for ONLY the electoral college to be involved with the presidential election. Kind of like the first few presidential elections. No popular votes for that office. That way, we could pay more attention to the levels of government that we actually have some control over- our Congressmen/women. State and National representatives are what we really get to choose. I think the obsession that has lasted for centuries now, for president, is the residual effects of living in a monarchy for so long. We get to pick the King now! WRONG!
That ONE PERSON has limited power! They are one person. They are not monarchs. That is one of the greatest aspects of our government, and modern democratic governments, in general. There are checks and balances so nothing too extreme can go wrong for too long. It would work great for us, the citizens in this country, if most of the members of our three branches weren't bought by the plutocrats.
That ONE PERSON has limited power! They are one person. They are not monarchs. That is one of the greatest aspects of our government, and modern democratic governments, in general. There are checks and balances so nothing too extreme can go wrong for too long. It would work great for us, the citizens in this country, if most of the members of our three branches weren't bought by the plutocrats.
Then voting for Johnson is still not a wasted vote since the crap has already been decided and you know it. I don't know why we even bother voting.
Me neither. Especially for president. But, it's a real hoot to argue about it.
Not quite true, if I understand the electoral college correctly. I think the members are required to vote the way the people voted on the first ballot only. If nobody gets the required votes on the first ballot then they can vote for whoever they choose on the 2nd.
An uber-liberal socialist friend forwarded me this piece from Michael Moore. Apparently, Michael thinks the Trump presidency is one the way! And, after reading it, he makes some very good points!
5 Reasons Why Trump WIns
5 Reasons Why Trump WIns
If that's the case, then just toss the Electoral College. It's like a token gesture, or nod to what it once was. TV Networks choose presidents! They always say "And, we can now predict that the State of North Carolina and it's 15 electoral votes go to __________." I feel like slapping Wolfe Blitzer. The delegates haven't even convened yet, dude!
Yeah well he also predicted McCain and then Romney soooooo. Hillary WILL win.... Gut feeling and something I am just that sure of. Close your eyes, sit and clear your mind and imagine an inaugural swearing in. You see her fat head too, you know you do lol
Uh, yeah, you did.
Oh for fuks sake. How the hell could she possibly disagree? IT IS THERE IN WRITING.
At this point, I am certain that Chick is a parody poaster. No other explanation.
Michael Moore might be the biggest piece of scum in the world. That said - he does make some decent points in that article. I think points 3 and 5 are the most important to note.
#3 was the Hillary factor. Yes Trump sucks, but so does Hillary - and those who don't vote 3rd party will need to choose between the two. Hillary is just as hated, but in other ways.
#5 was the "Jesse Ventura effect" where people will be voting for Trump just because they can - and to stick it to the rest of the establishment. This is probably where I sit in this whole thing. I know for damn sure I will not be voting for Clinton in November. If I vote for Trump, it'll be for this reason. If I vote for Johnson, it'll be because I didn't want to vote for Trump and was fine throwing my vote away.
How else would you do it? If all members voted like the people in their state voted and nobody got the required votes on the first ballot, what do you want them to do? Keep having ballot after ballot with no change?
Whatever you say, chief!!! I'm a parody of you..... OR maybe I am one of your wives spying on you. Bwahahahahaha
Okay... I think you lost me there.
I'm simply saying, the Electoral College is a token gesture if the delegates always votes identical to the popular vote.
I love parodies more than anyone! But, that was hardly "insane funny. A must watch."
That was boring.
The only power the electoral college has is if nobody has the required votes on the first ballot (Hillary had enough). By rule they have to vote for the person who won the precinct they represent. If no one has the required votes on the first ballot then they are free to vote for anybody they wish on the second ballot and if you think about it it's impossible to have it any other way.
Similar threads
