Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on October 05, 2012, 11:12:28 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842704
The gaming hobby of a political candidate has become an issue in a state senate race in New England, US.
Maine Republicans have created a webpage revealing that Democrat candidate Colleen Lachowicz plays an orc rogue in World of Warcraft (WoW).
Ms Lachowicz's liking for back-stabbing and poison in WoW raise questions about her "fitness for office", they claim.
Ms Lachowicz has hit back saying the attack showed the Republicans were "out of touch".
Seriously? Now the Republicans have become racist about Orcs? :p
-
Gaming researcher Ladan Cockshut said the row revealed how gaming can be seen as a bad thing to do.
Not the most fortunate of names for promoting the non-nerdiness of gaming...
With regards to the original topic, sadly this sort of thing will actually work on some voters, even though it stinks of desperation.
-
Yeah but I wonder how much it will be balanced out by people actually going out to vote because she's a gamer.
Properly exploited she could completely offset any damage this could do.
-
I saw "democrate" and thought "demo[lition]" + crate, as in "crate of explosives"...
Um... on topic... yeah I got nothing.
-
OMG YOU PLAY A GAME YOU'RE UNFIT FOR OFFICE!!11!!!1one!!
A GAME!
A GAME! :mad:
Seriously gaiz just be glad she does the backstabbing in a virtual world and not on you.
And I agree, this might actually help her more than it hurts her, given how gaming is a rather large presence in modern youth's lives that (in my experience) our parents never really seemed to understand or care about.
-
"The candidate habitually chooses the Renegade Interrupts during..."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lW7nT-DHa1M/T_Rz-37iqTI/AAAAAAAAB9M/1reWqV1PaNo/s200/RenegadeInterrupt.jpg)
"I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions!"
Crunch! Crash! Splat!
"Aieee!! My legs!"
-
First Sesame Street, now World of Warcraft. I think we've just wiped out the complete spectrum of entertainment for people aged 1 to 13; nothing is permissible to the Republican Party. Children must toil in the factories again.
-
Wouldnt the fact that the democrat candidate plays WoW show that he's far more in touch and up to date with this generation? They claim its bad over the character but I see as good over the fact the lady even knows what WoW is unlike his opponent.
edit: thanks, battuta.
-
Wouldnt the fact that the democrat candidate plays WoW show that he's far more in touch and up to date with this generation? They claim its bad over the character but I see as good over the fact the guy even knows what WoW is unlike his opponent.
She, lady
-
Prejudices against WoW Players are common - even people who play other games have them.
While it's nice to bash the GOP, I still can remember Tipper Gore and that Rap Music Thing... ;)
-
Lets be honest you're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel if "Plays WoW" is the best attack ad in your arsenal.
-
:wtf: *facepalm*
Someone just ran out of constructive proposals here.
-
What other parties are there in the US?
-
The Keg Party!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Parties with Federal representation:
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Independent (0 in House of Representatives; 2 in Senat)
Major:
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party
Minor:
America First Party
American Party*
American Patriot Party
American Populist Party
American Third Position Party
Americans Elect
America's Party
Christian Liberty Party
Citizens Party of the United States
Communist Party of the United States of America
Freedom Socialist Party
Independence Party of America
Independent American Party
Jefferson Republican Party
Justice Party
Labor Party
Modern Whig Party
National Socialist Movement
Objectivist Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party
Prohibition Party
Raza Unida Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
United States Marijuana Party*
United States Pacifist Party
United States Pirate Party
Unity Party of America
Workers World Party
-
So why does anyone still vote for either the naive party, or the stupid one?
-
More like "wimpy party" or "greedy pigs party",
edit: also you're quite late to be joining in on that discussion, it's already had like 10 threads
-
I find it amusing that she plays horde. :) If the GOP played, what do you think they would play, some stuffy night elf?
-
"The candidate habitually chooses the Renegade Interrupts during..."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lW7nT-DHa1M/T_Rz-37iqTI/AAAAAAAAB9M/1reWqV1PaNo/s200/RenegadeInterrupt.jpg)
"I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions!"
Crunch! Crash! Splat!
"Aieee!! My legs!"
but that leaves you with only 3 4 endings.
-
"The candidate habitually chooses the Renegade Interrupts during..."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lW7nT-DHa1M/T_Rz-37iqTI/AAAAAAAAB9M/1reWqV1PaNo/s200/RenegadeInterrupt.jpg)
"I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions!"
Crunch! Crash! Splat!
"Aieee!! My legs!"
but that leaves you with only 3 4 endings.
Nah only 3 endings.
Fusing organics and synthetics may be doable... but fusing Democrats and Republicans? Phat Chance :)
-
Well actually more like
- vote red
- vote blue
- vote 3rd party
- not vote
is what I was thinking
-
Well actually more like
- vote red
- vote blue
- vote 3rd party
- not vote
is what I was thinking
4. Refuse (to Vote) ? LOL
... and don't duck out of "Synthesis" by simply making to option about voting for someone else (which is basically the same as refusing to vote - the way the US political landscape is set up currently lol.)
-
Well actually more like
- vote red
- vote blue
- vote 3rd party
- not vote
is what I was thinking
SO BE IT! The voting continues...
-
well i figure voting a 3rd party like the commies will unite everyone by destroying the other parties.
-
How's that supposed to make sense?
-
A small question, why isnt voting mandatory in the US?
-
A small question, why isnt voting mandatory in the US?
It's not mandatory anywhere your vote actually matters.
-
Australia just as bad, huh?
-
Australia just as bad, huh?
Considering some of the stuff they've passed...
But really, making it mandatory doesn't accomplish anything besides demanding the disinterested or disaffected vote. That in turn is just artificially inflating the signal-to-noise any election.
And making it mandatory implies you'll punish them for not voting. Which rapidly veers bad places. If you say it's mandatory but there's no significant punishment, that's not really mandatory.
-
Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted :doubt:), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?
After all they became terrorists under the British Empire to fight for your right to vote...
-
It's a sorta open question as to whether voters lead or follow, but right now signs point to follow. Making voting mandatory would just make parties more powerful.
-
I vote for the apathy party.
-
Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted :doubt:), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?
Deliberately not voting is, in itself, a political statement. We call it a boycott.
-
Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted :doubt:), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?
After all they became terrorists under the British Empire to fight for your right to vote...
The current presidential election system isn't the original election system that was created by our Founding Fathers back in the day.
We used to have an indirect vote in the form of an Electoral College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29), but nowadays the Electorial College is irrelevant and people get manipulated by vote for candidates directly.
-
No we don't. We vote for electors, and the electors have pledged that they will vote for a particular candidate. Idunno how it works in the two states that split their electoral votes.
But the electoral college still exists, and is just as stupid as ever.
-
No we don't. We vote for electors, and the electors have pledged that they will vote for a particular candidate. Idunno how it works in the two states that split their electoral votes.
Do show me a ballot where you vote for electors rather then the candidates themselves, then. Apparently my perception of people checking either 'Obama' or 'Romney' in a ballot box is way off.
But the electoral college still exists, and is just as stupid as ever.
It made more sense back in the days before modern communication. Without television or radio, your average citizen didn't have any knowledge of the presidential candidates.
-
Average citizens still don't, there is some pretty depressing research on this.
-
..................
WE STILL HAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Your vote for Obama or Romney decides how your electoral district votes. The elector for that district is supposed to vote for whoever the majority of voters in that district selected on their ballot, but they don't have to. This way, if 100% of people vote for one candidate, or if 50%+1 vote one candidate, that candidate is still getting the electoral vote! So now that 50%-1 who voted for the other guy don't count. So yeah, you vote for the president on your ballot, but it's not like all the ballots are going into one big pool and deciding who wins.
EDIT: Oh and being an elector is also an elected position IIRC, but I don't remember if the people vote for them or members of government or what. So that's supposed to be a check on them not voting with the people of their electoral district. They don't get reelected if they ignore the will of their constituents or something.
-
An indirect voting system would be citizens checking 'elector A' or 'elector B' on their ballot box.
No, what we have currently is a direct voting system. It may be a bit in between, but it is still much more of a direct system then an indirect system.
EDIT: Oh and being an elector is also an elected position IIRC, but I don't remember if the people vote for them or members of government or what. So that's supposed to be a check on them not voting with the people of their electoral district. They don't get reelected if they ignore the will of their constituents or something.
Or it might just be that electors are practically chosen nowadays rather then elected. After all, they have to get into office somehow, and not many people seem to care enough about electoral candidates to vote for one. (Those that do care are probably individuals that are already part of the political system)
Can't be bothered to research it myself though.
-
It's not mandatory anywhere your vote actually matters.
Huh uh, sure. :yes:
But really, making it mandatory doesn't accomplish anything besides demanding the disinterested or disaffected vote. That in turn is just artificially inflating the signal-to-noise any election.
And making it mandatory implies you'll punish them for not voting. Which rapidly veers bad places. If you say it's mandatory but there's no significant punishment, that's not really mandatory.
Voting is mandatory in Brazil for every adult from 18 to 70 years, we had elections for mayor today and voting was pretty smooth, as for punishment its nothing major, the punishment is simply paying a fine after the first election you missed, then you get other restrictions if you miss two others (cant take a passport, public job, etc).
-
A small question, why isnt voting mandatory in the US?
It's not mandatory anywhere your vote actually matters.
We direct, mandatory voters could think the exact same thing about places without mandatory vote and/or with an electoral college or however you may want to call it. But fortunately, at least in my empirical experience*, we just understand that different nations organize their electoral systems in different ways based on such differing factors as their particular history, culture, the level of development of their communication infrastructure and their geographical situation.
So we pretty much think one size doesn't fit all and so we try not to gratuitously treat other peoples' votes as unworthy and other nations' political systems as flawed.
Crazy, uh? :shaking:
*DISCLAIMER: Experience provided AS IS, based on most people I deal with on a daily basis and not on a properly selected, statistically significant sample. Your milage may vary as to how much of a bunch of assholes such people may be. Batteries not included.
-
It's a pity you didn't read the second post then, since it kind of explained why mandatory voting simply doesn't add anything besides people who either don't care or might want to deliberately screw up the vote.
You're basically arguing you can force people to cast a meaningful vote rather than just be contrary or chose the guy with a moustache. If you can't spot the problem with that idea...well.
-
I've always said that if the UK bring in mandatory voting, I'm going into politics. It's really not hard to win if you force the idiots who usually don't to vote.
You know you love Britain. Vote Tits and Puppies!
-
It's a pity you didn't read the second post then, since it kind of explained why mandatory voting simply doesn't add anything besides people who either don't care or might want to deliberately screw up the vote.
You're basically arguing you can force people to cast a meaningful vote rather than just be contrary or chose the guy with a moustache. If you can't spot the problem with that idea...well.
Nope, I did, and it didn't.
Your second post:
A) Ignores historical circumstances.* Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1enz_Pe%C3%B1a_Law), which is the first that comes to my mind right now, and the one I'm most familiar with. I'm Argentinean, mind you.
B) Ignores that anyone who actually IS indifferent and doesn't really wants to vote can void their ballot or cast a blank ballot or any other such option that their system allows.
Anticipating some replies that could arise:
"But then they aren't casting a meaningful vote!"
Define what a meaningful vote is.
"They're just going to vote for the candidate with the least possibilities to win, to balance things. (be contrary)"
Yes. That's part of the game. I've done it. Especially when voting representatives for the legislative bodies.
"They're just going to vote for some superficial and inane thing, like physical appearance. (choose the guy with a mustache)"
That's prejudice. One or two idiots who cast a superficial vote do not make enough of a reason to put artificial barriers to voting. (And while I'm at it, looking down upon people's opinion like that will usually earn you their comtempt, not their votes.)
"Artificial barriers to voting isn't the same as optional vote."
It is in some places, because not all realities are the same and one size doesn't fits all. Read the article I will post at the end of the post if you want me to elaborate.
"But if you're going to force them to vote just so that they can void their ballots, why force them in the first place?"
To avoid people manipulating who gets to vote and who doesn't by imposing de jure or de facto barriers. EVERYONE gets the chance to vote, and in the privacy of the voting booth you decide whether you actually want to use that right or not. Read the article below.
"People are going to boycott the election by casting void or blank ballots en masse. (screw up the vote)"
Yes, they are going to if they have to. They're also boycotting it when they don't vote. The difference being, with mandatory vote, people actually get to know it instead of the major parties shielding themselves behind apathy and uncertainty.
So, to sum it up, I'll repeat it once again: Different historical, cultural, political, geographical and economical situations lead to different approaches to the voting system. If you don't know and understand such realities, stating that their voting system (or any other aspect of their society for that matter) is flawed, is just arrogance.
- The Swiss system of cantons, directories and direct democracy works very well... for the Swiss. (Or at least I guess it works well for them.) But they're few, well educated and live in a small area. Good for them. Not so good for most countries.
- The Argentinean system works fairly well... for a population where illiteracy is very low. But if the majority of the people in your country can't read, then making them use a printed ballot is an ILLUSION of democracy. You have to use something else then. Again, good for us, not so good for others.
- The US system of optional voting and an electoral college that somehow isn't an electoral college works well... for the Americans. Culturally, they seem to believe that only people who want to vote should vote. Works well in a population where everyone KNOWS when voting day is. Not so well in some underdeveloped country with low population density and poor communication infrastructure though. Good for them. Not so good for the rest of the world.
I could keep going, but I think by now I've made my point clear.
*: And since the last time I was kind and gentle and caring and made a really big effort to cite only sources in English (which by the way leaves me with very little space to maneuver) all I got in exchange was being scolded for citing "only" articles from Wikipedia (which, in fact, I consider is a very healthy thing to do), now I'm also citing, as complementary reading, THIS SPANISH-WRITTEN ARTICLE HERE (http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/republica_liberal/saenz_pena_quiera_el_pueblo_votar.php) from a well-known Argentinean historian, that explains in great detail the circumstances that led to the Saenz Peña Law, which is the (though admittedly heavily modified) law of the current Argentinean electoral system. The Saenz Peña law was the one that established mandatory voting. And there, in the article, you can see WHY we chose this way of voting in our own historical and political context.
And I'm not translating it, for great justice. I believe this both contributes to further the knowledge of those who actually want to know, by forcing them to either learn a new language or go through the hassle of using a mediocre automated translator (in some way similar to relegating voting for those who actually "care", when you think about it), and at the same time illustrates the point of why I will be citing Wikipedia articles in English from now on so that we all can understand each other and have a civil discussion. Two birds, one stone. I should be put to handle the logistics in the UEF if I manage to keep this up.
-
That was A Good Post.
-
Indeed.
-
I think you guys should just got to civil war about this again. Ya know, have a friendly brawl, shed some blood, shed some tears. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Then afterwards you count the bodies and you decide the winner through that. Clear and simple to understand, even the average citizen would get this system!
Hell, I don't think half the world would notice the difference! American politics are already enough of a blood sport as it is, and the whole world is watching to be entertained. :p
-
That was A Good Post.
Indeed.
Thanks. ;) It took me a lot of time and effort.
-
Yep. Good post. Personally speaking, I'm kinda proud of the electoral process in my country. Snappy, efficient, very very fast and without hiccups of any kind. Everytime there's an election in the US, I'm constantly baffled by all the horror stories of people being "effectively" barred to vote, bad countings, signs of corruption and systemic problems in the electronic booths, reaching a point where judges get to decide the winner, etc... wasn't America the Democracy?
I hope all things go well this year. Or at least better than other years...
-
Yep. Good post. Personally speaking, I'm kinda proud of the electoral process in my country. Snappy, efficient, very very fast and without hiccups of any kind. Everytime there's an election in the US, I'm constantly baffled by all the horror stories of people being "effectively" barred to vote, bad countings, signs of corruption and systemic problems in the electronic booths, reaching a point where judges get to decide the winner, etc... wasn't America the Democracy?
... was, yes.
-
Still unable to get past the fact that
someone Alex Heartnet is wrong on the Internet. Or at least, using terms wrongly.
The electoral college still exists. Yes, the ballot will generally just say "Obama" or "Romney", but your vote is still going through the electoral college system.
-
All of this reminds me of what Mark Twain (or was it Emma Goldman?) stated:
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”
If I have to cite a recent example, look at how the GOP basically forced Romney on voters after a while, especially when they started calling him the 'presumptive nominee', but also during the primaries. The way votes for specific candidates were conveniently 'lost', votes already 'reported' before the person in charge even called the office that tallies it and even invalidating the elected (Ron Paul) Delegates during the GOP convention, breaking their own convention rules in doing so.
Ben Swann's program Reality Check on Fox 19 (Fox Affiliate, not Fox News) has been covering the whole situation a lot, and is now also covering the exclusion of the 3rd (and all other) Parties from debates and the public view: Reality Check: Who Is Behind The Commission on Presidential Debates? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQsIKbQLFY&feature=share&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA).
The way the current political climate shows itself for quite a while now the Democrats and Republicans seem to have almost the same stance on the most important or central issues, almost never debating policy seriously but are only seen fighting over the levers of power and popularity, rightfully condemning bad stuff when it's the other party doing it but instead cheering for anything, good and bad, if it's their own party doing it.
It just seems like another election circus of promises and rhetoric, with comedic elements sometimes. It's the way I expect and kinda 'want' both parties to be like, if only it didn't lead to embarrassing conclusions of many poor and middle class people believing that their candidate would fix everything and cater to them.
However, both parties take the levers of power itself very seriously and I can see (Geo)political events like Syria, Iran or other growing conflicts exploding being used to rally popularity and support back to Obama to convincingly 'win' his re-election.
Any large event, including disasters or a domestic or foreign threat against the country can greatly increase the popularity and support of the sitting president with help of media, similar to the popularity increase of Clinton after the OKC bombing or Bush's after 9/11, something that people like Mark Penn, ex-Clinton strategist said Obama needs to reconnect with the American people, and a 'Commander in Chief' seems to be expected to lead the nation into righteous war in retaliation against such a threat.
(A short video of Mark Penn's statement is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8&noredirect=1)):
Robert Shapiro says Obama needs a terror attack to save presidency (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/434315b2-8ea6-11df-8a67-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F434315b2-8ea6-11df-8a67-00144feab49a.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Ftop-clinton-official-only-a-terror-attack-can-save-obama.html) (you'll have to log in there to see the article, but below is the excerpt):
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Then there's the very recently FEMA pre-disaster preparations under Bill HR6566 for 'mass fatality planning' (link here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6566/text). Kinda odd and coincidentally timed to see that as something new instead of a continued program. Guess they're expecting something big to happen domestically.
In these weird times of widespread economic crisis and depressions, wars and conflicts starting to pop up all over the place and record low popularity of the U.S. Congress and governments themselves, it's a bad recipe.
And yes, I could be wrong, I'd be happy if that was the case. At the least, we live in interesting times.
-
We are absolutely still not a direct democracy. As mentioned, we still have electoral colleges. The big change now since the progressive movement is that the citizens rather than the states assign the electoral votes. In a direct democracy, Bush would have been a one-term President.
So yeah, we're more transparent and progressive, but it's still very reliant on the states.
-
In a direct democracy, Bush would have never been elected in the first place.
-
My point exactly.
-
In a direct democracy, Bush would have never been elected in the first place.
Oh, come on. Bush won a perfectly legitimate 5-4 majority of Supreme Court justices...
-
*snip*
Brother, many thanks for that post - I'm simply hoping more people would take those matters seriously.
-
And yes, I could be wrong, I'd be happy if that was the case. At the least, we live in interesting times.
Well, the times are just as (un?)interesting as they were 100, 500 or even 1000 years ago, complete with conspiracies, wars, epidemics and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
The news coverage and ability to communicate is what really got interesting.
-
Early voting starts today. I'll be casting my ballot for Obama soon. Although I do not really agree with either candidate's space policy.
-
Early voting starts today. I'll be casting my ballot for Obama soon. Although I do not really agree with either candidate's space policy.
Shhhhh, you can't tell anybody, otherwise it won't come true!
-
I figure this is as good as any of the other "we are fed up with our political system" threads to bump...
According to somebody I'm friends with on Facebook:
Thus far there are seven states, California, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and Hawaii; who have signed legislation to change their method of granting electoral votes. This legislation will effectively end the electoral college entirely by sidestepping it at the state level, but the legislation only enters into effect once a total of 270 electors, the amount required for victory, have entered into this pledge. Once that amount of electors is reached, these states would award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote instead of the state result.
-
Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether populism is a good thing.
-
Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether populism is a good thing.
Is that reply meant for Aardwolf and did you mean direct democracy?
Because "populism" really is something else entirely.
-
Early voting starts today. I'll be casting my ballot for Obama soon. Although I do not really agree with either candidate's space policy.
Given the current state of affairs in the United States, I'd say space policy is probably the last thing you should be worried about in your choice of President for the next four years.
-
Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether fear of populism is a good thing.
There. Fixed. :P
-
Wasn't part of the problem of a direct vote system the probability that the candidates will basically just court (and later, enact policies that support) the states with the highest population and leave sparsely populated states as inconsequential, because they suddenly are? Although, the alternative is having the say of the fewer people in the sparsely populated states matter more than the masses packed into other states...
I think it basically comes down to states' rights and power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
http://712educators.about.com/cs/polisciresource/f/foundingfathers.htm
Question: Why did the Founding Fathers create electors?
Answer: Two reasons:
1. To give extremely small states some say in the election.
2. To place a check on the 'uneducated' masses. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, many voters could not read and did not have access to accurate information. The framers of the Constitution felt that a check was needed.
-
Wasn't part of the problem of a direct vote system the probability that the candidates will basically just court (and later, enact policies that support) the states with the highest population and leave sparsely populated states as inconsequential, because they suddenly are?
Except the electoral college doesn't stop that candidates from courting states that actually matter in the elections.
It's not like, for example, Texas and California will vote any differently unless the corresponding candidate personally makes his mission to piss in the living room of every person in those states.
Check last election's number of visits to, say... Ohio and Pennsylvania, against every other state combined or something.
-
Prejudices against WoW Players are common - even people who play other games have them.
While it's nice to bash the GOP, I still can remember Tipper Gore and that Rap Music Thing... ;)
Players who played WoW and stopped have them too...
It's kinda like smoking I guess ;)
However... playing WoW makes a politician no more or less fit or unfit than smoking or not smoking would do.