The 50.1% Doctrine vs. The Value of a Solid Majority
Democracy's incentives are structured to encourage triangulation toward winning the most votes. The conventional rules say that if you can identify the policies that are most popular and get behind them more effectively than your opponent you'll end up winning. Both candidates compete to win as much support as possible and the person who wins the
( Read more... )
I guess I did 'get it' partly after all.
I consider a landslide for the purpose of declaring a mandate to be more closely related to the popular vote. And I've long considered the electoral college to be an unnecessary anachronism.
Anyway it really isn't semantics this time, just my prejudices. I still dunno what Rove has to do with the issue, but I'll leave that bit.
-----------
I simply don't remember where I saw it. I spend way to much time reading and might see something in passing that rises out of the subconscious later.
In terms of 'deeply' vs 'evenly'; I'm not so sure the distinction matters in my statement, but it wasn't a typo.
I probably should have said 'committed' instead, but either word adequately reflects my thinking. Nope, I don't care for drones in this case
Sometimes folks simply are not going to see things 'eye to eye', when that happens folks will say or do foolish things.
Fearmongering is simply a word that is used to dismiss a differing risk assessment without consideration.
So anyway... if Obama wins I want him to win with a significant majority of the popular vote, the electoral college will likely take care of itself.
I'm getting old and I wanna see what happens. [grin]
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
What percentage counts as a landslide in your book?
I still dunno what Rove has to do with the issue, but I'll leave that bit.
I covered that explicitly in my second paragraph.
I probably should have said 'committed' instead ...
"A deeply committed electorate actually protects us from a runaway freight train"? I guess that depends on what the commitment is to. If it's a commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and the Bill of Rights then that obviously saves us from a whole lot more freight trains than an electorate committed to one particular religious group, ethnic group, or political party.
Sometimes folks simply are not going to see things 'eye to eye', when that happens folks will say or do foolish things.
You're finally saying something that I can agree with. When people are committed to their deeply divided positions - when they are unable to see eye to eye with one another - they say or do things which can be charitably described as "foolish". Good things rarely come from a deficit of empathy and pragmatism. History is full of such examples.
Reply
I covered that explicitly in my second paragraph.
You did, and I just don't get it. Some spin doctor can say 50.1% is a mandate. Who cares?
Good things rarely come from a deficit of empathy and pragmatism. History is full of such examples.
I'm not so sure that empathy and pragmatism should be in the same sentence.
Isn't empathy an overtly 'sense' thing and pragmatism an overtly 'non-sense' thing? True in my book, so just asking?
Reply
Talking again only about the popular vote... I'm thinking 70% or so.
By your definition nobody in the United States has ever won by a landslide. The closest was Johnson/Goldwater winning 61-38 in '64.
Some spin doctor can say 50.1% is a mandate. Who cares?
Do you actually read what I write or do you just respond off-the-cuff? "Some spin doctors" is the point of paragraph three and "who cares" is paragraph 5.
Once again we're back to active listening. The problem here isn't that you disagree with me, the problem is that you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Unfortunately I can't be any clearer than I was originally. This might not be the blog for you.
Reply
Well ... no.
Sometimes fearmongers are just plain wrong. When someone says that Barack Obama is an Arab Muslim they're not using "a different risk assessment". They are factually incorrect. They are mongering fear from total lies.
Sometimes fearmongers are not liars. Sometimes they are right - but still wrong. When someone says that Obama "pals around with terrorists" the are technically correct, inasmuch as a Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago who turned himself into the authorities 18 years ago is a "terrorist" and serving on the same Republican board is "palling around". But they're still not using "a differing risk assessment". They're not assessing any risks at all. They're just saying something that sounds scary and letting everyone come to their own conclusions.
Of course sometimes people *are* making an actual risk assessment. For example if someone says we'd better fight the Arabs in Iraq before they invade America then you are correct: that person is using a "differing risk assessment". Specifically, a risk assessment that is detached from reality, not credible, and utterly crazy. Calling this third kind of person a fearmonger is implicitly saying "I have considered what you are saying and have determined that you are a loon for saying it".
Reply
Leave a comment