The Frozen Forest wrote:Wrong, its not the electoral system which is to fault, though it may be antique it is still effective. The blame if any happens to exist would be in the First Past the Post system we use,
Yes, that is a facet of the electoral system.
but that issue is a long-standing problem and you can't directly correlate that with a Trump/Hillary Victory because of Strategic Voting.
A failure of imagination. Unpopular candidates (e.g. Trump and Clinton) depress turnouts,* give people realistic options and then things turn out differently.
Most complaints about strategic voting are idiotic. You vote for the outcome you find most desirable. If that means you don't vote your preference in, say, two stage voting, so what? But presumably you're suggesting Strategic Voting would be why non-FPP systems can't be linked with Trump/Clinton. But the truth is that if you get the cynics to turn up, and they're biased one way or the other...
*Well, that stands to reason anyway.
Regarding your argument that an unpopular opponent can defeat a more unpopular opponent, i suppose your correct however trump holds between 30-45 percent popularity even by polls which were wrong before, arguably pro-liberal before. Come the next election, if he were to win then the argument that its just another more unpopular candidate falls flat.
Why are you suddenly talking about elections (especially future elections) at all? I am doing nothing more than pointing out your failure to use logical reasoning.
No, i believe that your wrong. If you didn't believe in the candidates, either of them, then you simply didn't have to vote. If voter confidence in Hillary and the Democratic party was so low, then the end result is the same and popularity for Donald and the Republicans is irrelevant because they will win irregardless.
It's quite impossible to tell what you're talking to here.
I "go on" about the polls to elaborate that they are now historically inaccurate.
\
As Neu Leonstein and myself have pointed out, you and people more widely have been misinterpreting poll. It isn't seen as a problem with cars when people sit in them without starting them and expect to arrive somewhere. That's what you're doing. You're sitting in a car without a driver and expecting it to magically take you somewhere.
The whole measure of this topic is dealing with the unpopularity of trump, in which most sources are featuring polls as evidence. My argument is that they are not always accurate, evidence would support my case.
You're going on about something you've completely failed to understand. The polls weren't flawed about Trump. They just showed Trump was less likely to win. Valid processes can predict wrong outcomes. Your evidence that the polls are wrong relies on a fundamental error on your part. It's just not evidence.
I was not surprised by the outcome. My mention of surprise comes from the number of polls that listed it as a probable Hillary victory, thereby even though my own expectations were correct, it is technically a "surprise" victory, or an upset. Here's just a few articles i found that mention an upset or a surprise after the election.
I'm not going to read these. Invariably they're going to be "people who didn't know how to understand what they were reading, misunderstood what they were reading, ended up getting surprised" stories. Everyone knows that this happened. It is, in fact, a much lamented fact. It doesn't demonstrate your point (which is that the polls were wrong).
My last argument was relevant to my argument and therefore relevant to the topic. Taking one chunk of an argument and saying that particular chunk is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
How is it relevant to your argument? It's talking about something completely different.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:13 am
