• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

Yes. Just because the Republicans ran out a reality TV star and it worked, does that mean you have to stoop to running less qualified candidates? If that's the only way to win, so be it, but I'm not sure if it is.

First of all, the Democrats ran a charismatic first term senator and it worked. So your post is pretty dumb.

Second of all, the less “qualified” candidate has won every race since 1992. 1992 Clinton was less qualified than Bush and ‘96 Dole. 2000 Bush was less qualified than Gore and ‘04 Kerry. 2008 Obama was less qualified than McCain and 2012 Romney. 2016 Trump was less qualified than Hillary.

Didn't Beto pretty clearly state he wouldn't be running in 2020? I know things can change, but it seemed pretty definitive.

I didn’t see the comments but I’m pretty sure that was if he won he wouldn’t run. No one expects him not to run for something now that he lost.
 
First of all, the Democrats ran a charismatic first term senator and it worked. So your post is pretty dumb.

Second of all, the less “qualified” candidate has won every race since 1992. 1992 Clinton was less qualified than Bush and ‘96 Dole. 2000 Bush was less qualified than Gore and ‘04 Kerry. 2008 Obama was less qualified than McCain and 2012 Romney. 2016 Trump was less qualified than Hillary.



I didn’t see the comments but I’m pretty sure that was if he won he wouldn’t run. No one expects him not to run for something now that he lost.

Senator =/= Representative.
 
In theory, Trump has the experience advantage over any Democrat, because he's been president for 4 years. In practice, that might not matter because a)it's not evident that Trump is capable of or willing to learn anything and b)Trump couldn't actually play the experience card without being a raging hypocrite. Not that that would stop him, but the point is the experience thing would mostly be a wash. At this point, I'm looking for "public service"-so no Oprah.

Besides, Beto would be running as a candidate for president from Texas against an opponent from not-Texas, so that could help.
 
Put another way, Ted Cruz is such a fucking chode that there are only a handful of states where he could actually win an election. Texas is at the top of that list. Its the absolutely perfect place for Cruz (maybe Alabama could rival).
 
It's almost as though sewing misinformation and discrediting honest journalism is an enemy of democracy.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for not reading the whole article, but does he explain who gets to decide who is "informed?" How do we prevent questions like:

1. Democrats:
A) tax
B) spend
C) hate America
D) all of the above
 
"why try"

but here is the response:

Sean Illing
Is there any fair way to determine who is and isn’t competent? Whoever defines the criteria has an immense amount of power in society, and the potential for abuse seems almost unavoidable. Although I know you’re against voting tests, I’m thinking here of racist literacy tests and poll taxes used in the Jim Crow South to keep black people from voting. Do you not worry about this kind of abuse?

Jason Brennan
Yeah, I do. Every kind of political system is abused, and we should guard against that. Here’s what I propose we do: Everyone can vote, even children. No one gets excluded. But when you vote, you do three things.

First, you tell us what you want. You cast your vote for a politician, or for a party, or you take a position on a referendum, whatever it might be. Second, you tell us who you are. We get your demographic information, which is anonymously coded, because that stuff affects how you vote and what you support.

And the third thing you do is take a quiz of very basic political knowledge. When we have those three bits of information, we can then statistically estimate what the public would have wanted if it was fully informed.

Under this system, it’s not really the case that you have more power than I do. We can’t really point to any individual and say you were excluded, or your vote counted for more. The idea is to gauge what the public would actually want if it had all the information it needed.

Sean Illing
Okay, I’ve got a few issues with that, but let’s stick to the original question, which is who determines the criteria? Who decides what goes on that test?

Jason Brennan
People will try to manipulate that test for their own benefit. Republicans might want to make the test exclude certain groups; the Democrats will want to make the test exclude certain groups, or weigh certain issues.

So here’s my paradoxical-sounding idea: Let democracy decide what goes on the test. Randomly select, say, 500 citizens. Pay them a bunch of money and pass a law that says they can take time off from work without any kind of detriment to their career. Let them deliberate with one another, let them work together. They get to decide what’s going to go on the test. And then we use that test to weigh votes.
 
CONT.

Sean Illing
Why should we expect them to know the answers to this imagined test?

Jason Brennan
This sounds weird, but it’s really not. If you survey people and ask them what it takes to be an informed voter, they say the same kinds of things I would say, but you quickly find out that many of them don’t know the answers.

If I ask my 10-year-old son what he should look for in a spouse, he’d be surprisingly good at giving you a sensible answer about what makes for a good spouse. But no one thinks he’s competent right now to actually pick a spouse, or get married.

Voters know in the abstract what they ought to know; they just don’t actually know the things they think they should.
 
So his solution is to randomly select people to decide what a non-random group of "informed" citizens should know in order to vote as a way to combat misinformation among random citizens.

LOL OK.
 
So his solution is to randomly select people to decide what a non-random group of "informed" citizens should know in order to vote as a way to combat misinformation among random citizens.

LOL OK.

I actually thought that was pretty reasonable. It sounds really terrible at first glance, but he's probably right. Most people outside of the "own the libs at all costs!" crowd at least know what they should know. If I were running something similar, I'd probably blow it out to a bigger sample and do that size sample for every state, then average the results, but at the end of the day, you're probably going to get a list that looks pretty spot on the issues.
 
So his solution is to randomly select people to decide what a non-random group of "informed" citizens should know in order to vote as a way to combat misinformation among random citizens.

LOL OK.

so you simplified his idea and then added "lol OK"

strong post
 
I thought leftists were a threat to democracy but here come all the centrists to tell me they should decide who is qualified to vote. lol. horseshoe theory, indeed.
 
Back
Top