06-27-2016, 01:42 AM
ok i see what youre getting at there and youre right that this situation gets sticky BECAUSE
the vote isnt "pink or green", its "keep the building the same or paint it"- that is, a no vote isn't really a vote for something, its a vote for nothing. this would mean that a "yes" needs to get to 55% but a no would just have to "be sure that yes doesnt hit 55%", which is easier. in this specific example, you do need more guidelines. maybe, you need a 55% on either side to shut everyone up for X years. if nobody gets that, it gets brought up again in a year when arguments are better heard and people, maybe, know more. or it's decided by someone larger (like shagg mentioned, a lot of american politics falls to the legislature if necessary). or, some other solution WHICH IS BETTER THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW and just because i cant think of something as i sit here eating peanut butter cups at 1:45 on a sunday doesnt mean our current system is bulletproof
anyway, in the 2016 US election you will be voting, essentially, for "pink or green" but in 2020 you will be voting (likely) for the incumbent candidate vs a new one (keep it plain or paint it). it isn't enough in our politics to "fail to vote for the new guy", the current guy also needs to get a good amount of the vote. if this fails, it goes to congress. you see, something has to give here and theres no "going back" once the vote starts
i mean, imagine if in the US one guy votes for trump and two people vote for hillary. are we really going to bow our heads and go "but alas, this is the process of voting. she got more votes than him, and so we are bound by our duty". no, we would go "hey hey hey now that's a little silly, something went wrong here". this doesnt literally apply because we already account for this in the US, but im just giving another example of where a system thats just "one number vs the other, whoever is bigger wins" fails
the vote isnt "pink or green", its "keep the building the same or paint it"- that is, a no vote isn't really a vote for something, its a vote for nothing. this would mean that a "yes" needs to get to 55% but a no would just have to "be sure that yes doesnt hit 55%", which is easier. in this specific example, you do need more guidelines. maybe, you need a 55% on either side to shut everyone up for X years. if nobody gets that, it gets brought up again in a year when arguments are better heard and people, maybe, know more. or it's decided by someone larger (like shagg mentioned, a lot of american politics falls to the legislature if necessary). or, some other solution WHICH IS BETTER THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW and just because i cant think of something as i sit here eating peanut butter cups at 1:45 on a sunday doesnt mean our current system is bulletproof
anyway, in the 2016 US election you will be voting, essentially, for "pink or green" but in 2020 you will be voting (likely) for the incumbent candidate vs a new one (keep it plain or paint it). it isn't enough in our politics to "fail to vote for the new guy", the current guy also needs to get a good amount of the vote. if this fails, it goes to congress. you see, something has to give here and theres no "going back" once the vote starts
i mean, imagine if in the US one guy votes for trump and two people vote for hillary. are we really going to bow our heads and go "but alas, this is the process of voting. she got more votes than him, and so we are bound by our duty". no, we would go "hey hey hey now that's a little silly, something went wrong here". this doesnt literally apply because we already account for this in the US, but im just giving another example of where a system thats just "one number vs the other, whoever is bigger wins" fails
![[Image: Sd9744R.png]](http://i.imgur.com/Sd9744R.png)