4 ms·

How swiftly the meme has changed from "If we don't win, democracy dies!" to "Since we didn't win, let's get rid of elections!" See also "Our candidate didn't w

How swiftly the meme has changed from "If we don't win, democracy dies!" to "Since we didn't win, let's get rid of elections!" See also "Our candidate didn't win because of the electoral college, so let's get rid of that" and "Let's make people vote on Brexit again, since they voted wrong the last time." These people are almost charmingly shameless. Rather than do better, they just want to put the fix in for the next time.

shkkmo 4y ago
Supporters of sortition have been pushing it a lot longer than the current election cycle. Rather than dismissing "these people", perhaps you would benefit from engaging intellectually with the idea. If you did, you would probably find that the supporters of this idea are very different from what you are imagining.
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  It's the timing. Why, suddenly, this article here! What a coinkidink, hunh? I'm quite familiar with the concept and have had to implement non-FPtP voting schemes. However, it is a trap to engage with the disingenuous.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    The article was clearly timed to coincide with the US elections. That's why it was published the day before the election! Please don't try to shut down discussions with poorly constructed conspiracy theories.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      "The article was clearly timed to coincide with the US elections. That's why it was published the day before the election!" That's the same "conspiracy theory" he's talking about..
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        The implication was clearly that the article was posted by people unhappy with the results of the election...which doesn't make sense given that it was published before hand.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        It seems fairly safe to presume it was posted in anticipation of being upset with the results. And there is no "conspiracy", the author conspired with... who?
        shkkmo 4y ago
        > And there is no "conspiracy", the author conspired with... who? > However, it is a trap to engage with the disingenuous. I agree that there was clearly no conspiracy. However, the implication that was made is that the left is disingenuously conspiring in the support of this article / attitude. > It seems fairly safe to presume it was posted in anticipation of being upset with the results Doesn't seem like a safe presumption to me. This is a congressional election and congress is not very popular with either partisan electorate. The simplest explanation is that this is a journalist capitalizing on popular sentiment and a hot topic with an article.
SantalBlush 4y ago
It is funny that this article about abolishing elections shows up on the front page the morning after the US Senate is called for one party.
- lapcat 4y ago
  It's a coincidence. The article was published 6 days ago.
lordgroff 4y ago
Reading the article is sometimes helpful in preventing complete non sequitur replies.

shkkmo 4y ago

Supporters of sortition have been pushing it a lot longer than the current election cycle. Rather than dismissing "these people", perhaps you would benefit from engaging intellectually with the idea. If you did, you would probably find that the supporters of this idea are very different from what you are imagining.

at_a_remove 4y ago
It's the timing. Why, suddenly, this article here! What a coinkidink, hunh? I'm quite familiar with the concept and have had to implement non-FPtP voting schemes. However, it is a trap to engage with the disingenuous.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The article was clearly timed to coincide with the US elections. That's why it was published the day before the election! Please don't try to shut down discussions with poorly constructed conspiracy theories.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    "The article was clearly timed to coincide with the US elections. That's why it was published the day before the election!" That's the same "conspiracy theory" he's talking about..
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      The implication was clearly that the article was posted by people unhappy with the results of the election...which doesn't make sense given that it was published before hand.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        It seems fairly safe to presume it was posted in anticipation of being upset with the results. And there is no "conspiracy", the author conspired with... who?
        shkkmo 4y ago
        > And there is no "conspiracy", the author conspired with... who? > However, it is a trap to engage with the disingenuous. I agree that there was clearly no conspiracy. However, the implication that was made is that the left is disingenuously conspiring in the support of this article / attitude. > It seems fairly safe to presume it was posted in anticipation of being upset with the results Doesn't seem like a safe presumption to me. This is a congressional election and congress is not very popular with either partisan electorate. The simplest explanation is that this is a journalist capitalizing on popular sentiment and a hot topic with an article.

SantalBlush 4y ago

It is funny that this article about abolishing elections shows up on the front page the morning after the US Senate is called for one party.

lapcat 4y ago
It's a coincidence. The article was published 6 days ago.

lordgroff 4y ago

Reading the article is sometimes helpful in preventing complete non sequitur replies.