pacino wrote:

Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred?

Plenty of things have changed or not changed due to such a statistical difference. Except in the US Senate, that's kind of how democracy works

As TV notes, democracy is not the same thing as majority rule. There are a shitload of issues which aren't put up to binding, one shot, simple majority votes (including, in this and many other democracies, secession).

There are many areas where, when the change being sought is sufficiently significant, the bar is raised. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, it's 2/3 support in both houses and 3/4 of states. I think there should be some sort of a higher standard here as well, either through a super majority percentage or having to vote Yes twice a certain period of time apart so it's not a fluke.

I wouldn't be against that but, like I said, plenty of votes EVEN WHEN DONE BY LEGISLATORS, go down to 1 vote making the difference. This is how a lot of things are done.

rush limbaugh talked about how 'no means yes'

pacino wrote:rush limbaugh talked about how 'no means yes'

Without clicking the link, I assume it's about when a waitress asks him if he wants another slice of pie.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Usually you're not this bad at reading comprehension. Take that however you want.

If Texas/CA could secede from the USA with 50.1% of a state-wide referendum, then I think most Americans would consider that a bad thing.

Your homely example has essentially nothing to do with the section of my recent post that you bolded, but I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

I mean, your concern that independence might come about on the basis of something other than an 80/20 vote count is understood, but should be more of a concern to those evaluating, say, Cameron's fitness to govern whatever the UK consists of, or is to consist of, rather than whether the Scottish have considered the merits of independence for more than a fortnight

I wrote two paragraphs. The bolded comment was referenced in my first. Try to keep up.

{sigh}

okay, I re-read your entry. There's bound to be some reason why you bolded that specific remark of mine, in the context of the rest that you cut/pasted, but I'll be damned if I can come up with any explanation - however misguided it makes whatever point you were striving to make - other than the one I put forward.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred?

Plenty of things have changed or not changed due to such a statistical difference. Except in the US Senate, that's kind of how democracy works

As TV notes, democracy is not the same thing as majority rule. There are a shitload of issues which aren't put up to binding, one shot, simple majority votes (including, in this and many other democracies, secession).

There are many areas where, when the change being sought is sufficiently significant, the bar is raised. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, it's 2/3 support in both houses and 3/4 of states. I think there should be some sort of a higher standard here as well, either through a super majority percentage or having to vote Yes twice a certain period of time apart so it's not a fluke.

Werthless is right. I'm slow.

I gather what you're really on about here is the utter cluelessness of the Cameron government, which negotiated the terms of this referendum & somehow missed that it should insist on some kind of supermajority, or multiple votes, etc, to bring this whole thing up to your level of proper & respectable regime change.

Of course you may be prepared to let Cameron off, and blame whomever dreamt up the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which obsessed over matters like campaign finance and the font size of campaign literature, but does not seem to give any attention to how many votes any particular matter requires for passage; it's cited in the independence referendum as a source authority.

Or maybe it's all the UK Electoral Commission's fault.

But these organizations and the rules & regulations they've promulgated to govern referenda of this sort have been around for some time; years, in fact. Much, much longer than two weeks. Where were your complaints about the rules when they first emerged? Why wait until now to cry foul? What do you have against people deciding how they should govern themselves? You may not like the terms they devised, but they were devised by the people who have to live by them, well before this vote. According to this bleating protest in Foreign Policy, simple majority votes on matters even weightier than Scottish independence are practically part of the national character.

Let's face it; the rules on referendums, for independence and other matters, appear to have been long established and ratified by majority opinion in Scotland, and England. It's you, with your 11th-hour, tiny-feet-stomping protest of these well-established procedural rules, who is late to the party.

Russell Pearce resigned amid mass realization within his own party that he's an asshole:

Russell Pearce, a former state senator, stepped down as the party’s first vice chairman late Sunday, after several fellow Republicans running for statewide office denounced his comments and a Republican congressional candidate called for his resignation.
During a discussion on Sept. 6 on his radio show about the state’s public assistance programs, Mr. Pearce said: “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants or tubal ligations.”
He continued, “Then we’ll test for drugs and alcohol,” before adding that those who want more children should “then get a job.”
In a statement released by the Arizona Republican Party, Mr. Pearce said the comments were written by someone else and that he had “failed to attribute them to the author.” He said that he was stepping down to avoid a distraction before the November elections, when Arizona voters will elect a new governor.
“This was a mistake,” he said. “This mistake has been taken by the media and the left and used to hurt our Republican candidates.”

This was the guy that was the head of Arizona Senate and co-cponsored the 'show me your papers' legislation and was buddy-buddy with neo- nazis, thought calling people wetbacks was fine, etc etc etc

Arizona is starting push Texas for greatest number of asshats in the union.

It seems clear that as he negotiated the whole vote thing, Cameron was pretty short sighted.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

Is there a huge difference between 50.1% and 49.9% of people voting Yes in your theory of ratifying that change has already occurred?

Plenty of things have changed or not changed due to such a statistical difference. Except in the US Senate, that's kind of how democracy works

As TV notes, democracy is not the same thing as majority rule. There are a shitload of issues which aren't put up to binding, one shot, simple majority votes (including, in this and many other democracies, secession).

There are many areas where, when the change being sought is sufficiently significant, the bar is raised. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, it's 2/3 support in both houses and 3/4 of states. I think there should be some sort of a higher standard here as well, either through a super majority percentage or having to vote Yes twice a certain period of time apart so it's not a fluke.

Werthless is right. I'm slow.

I gather what you're really on about here is the utter cluelessness of the Cameron government, which negotiated the terms of this referendum & somehow missed that it should insist on some kind of supermajority, or multiple votes, etc, to bring this whole thing up to your level of proper & respectable regime change.

Of course you may be prepared to let Cameron off, and blame whomever dreamt up the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which obsessed over matters like campaign finance and the font size of campaign literature, but does not seem to give any attention to how many votes any particular matter requires for passage; it's cited in the independence referendum as a source authority.

Or maybe it's all the UK Electoral Commission's fault.

But these organizations and the rules & regulations they've promulgated to govern referenda of this sort have been around for some time; years, in fact. Much, much longer than two weeks. Where were your complaints about the rules when they first emerged? Why wait until now to cry foul? What do you have against people deciding how they should govern themselves? You may not like the terms they devised, but they were devised by the people who have to live by them, well before this vote. According to this bleating protest in Foreign Policy, simple majority votes on matters even weightier than Scottish independence are practically part of the national character.

Let's face it; the rules on referendums, for independence and other matters, appear to have been long established and ratified by majority opinion in Scotland, and England. It's you, with your 11th-hour, tiny-feet-stomping protest of these well-established procedural rules, who is late to the party.

I don't even know where to start. Are you having a bad week or something? I should've complained about the rules back in 2000 or when the referendum was first announced, and since I didn't I'm late to the party? I don't live in Scotland or the United Kingdom, so I didn't live and breathe the debate leading up to granting the referendum. I have been reading more about the issue over the past month as it has grown in prominence and have formed some opinions about it, which I am sharing in the politics thread of a Philadelphia Phillies message board. I don't really care who came up with the rules or how long they've been in place. I think they're ill-advised. Had I made these comments sooner, it is unlikely that they would have made much of a difference.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't even know where to start.

So let me start. I thought you did a fine job of setting out your reasons for having mixed feelings about whatever might be the outcome of the Scots' vote.

I read more than you probably intended into your offhand observation that "the position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland". I was...annoyed.... by its suggestion - which you apparently did not intend - that long-held majority intent is practically a required imprimatur for the initiation of "good" Big Changes, when history is studded with examples of good big changes for which long held majority opinion came, if it ever did, only well after initiation of the change (see, for one, slavery).

I spend too much of my time persuading people of the merits of change. Much, maybe most, of the time I'm urging them merely to 'ratify' change that has already taken place all around them - only to have them stupidly demur essentially because change hasn't happened 'enough' yet, a 'majority' hasn't changed, so why should they do anything other than what they've always done.

not sure if this was posted, but what an absolute scorcher take. my computer burst into flames when i opened the link http://www.uwbrandingiron.com/2014/09/1 ... 11-rituals

Scotland be votin'

Apparently a lot of polling places in Scotland are reporting 100% turnouts. I heard exit polling was illegal though so unfortunately might take a whole longer to fully know where the vote is heading.

Roger Dorn wrote:Apparently a lot of polling places in Scotland are reporting 100% turnouts. I heard exit polling was illegal though so unfortunately might take a whole longer to fully know where the vote is heading.

No one is doing an exit poll, but they're not illegal. And the 100% turnout thing I think is turning out to be something of an urban legend.

I do plan on watching the results come in tonight, but don't really have any experience following Scottish election returns, so I'll be at the mercy of the BBC and whatever on-line sources I can find. I'll make up for that by following my traditional election watching routine, with a twist--instead of Bourbon, I'll be enjoying a nice Single Malt or three.

Finally, if Yes wins, and secession fever catches on throughout Europe (Spain, Italy, and Belgium might all see renewed activity in this regard) then there might be pressure for more power to shift away from the nation states to the EU. Ironically, what is considered something of a democratic and decentralizing move in governance ends up having the opposite effect.

But thinking about this a bit more, I wonder why hardly anyone brings up the split up of Czechoslovakia. At the time, most people thought Slovakia had made a huge mistake by cutting ties with its wealthier, more democratic, and stable partner. But in reality, the break up has probably been a plus for both nations.

Given the theoretical work I'm currently doing, this result should not be surprising. I really do think in general devolution results in better government for several quite tangible reasons, most specifically gains in homogeneity and an electorate that is more informed (because local information is less mediated that information on a larger scale). And thus, while Scottish independence will be disruptive, and costly, there are likely to be long term gains in democratic and government effectiveness.

Also, I think it's great 16 and 17 year olds get to vote.

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, I think it's great 16 and 17 year olds get to vote.

I don't mind 16 and 17 year olds voting as long they're landowners of certain means.

(Original doesn't seem to be on youtube--it is on daily motion though.

TenuredVulture wrote:
But thinking about this a bit more, I wonder why hardly anyone brings up the split up of Czechoslovakia. At the time, most people thought Slovakia had made a huge mistake by cutting ties with its wealthier, more democratic, and stable partner. But in reality, the break up has probably been a plus for both nations.

I was thinking this earlier this week, but as it turns out none of my friends or family in allentown gave any fucks about it(which is ironic because we're pretty much all czech/slovaks). the split did work fairly well, but i remember reading that the czechs really didn't want to be in the union any more either. i really haven't read much about how england feels about scotland potentially leaving. them preferring a "no" vote is one thing, but how far are they willing to go to keep scotland UK?

go scotland.

i'm less informed than probably all of you so it's a good thing i'm not scottish. their socialist paradise sounds cool, though.

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
But thinking about this a bit more, I wonder why hardly anyone brings up the split up of Czechoslovakia. At the time, most people thought Slovakia had made a huge mistake by cutting ties with its wealthier, more democratic, and stable partner. But in reality, the break up has probably been a plus for both nations.

I was thinking this earlier this week, but as it turns out none of my friends or family in allentown gave any fucks about it(which is ironic because we're pretty much all czech/slovaks). the split did work fairly well, but i remember reading that the czechs really didn't want to be in the union any more either. i really haven't read much about how england feels about scotland potentially leaving. them preferring a "no" vote is one thing, but how far are they willing to go to keep scotland UK?

Union is the solid preference in the rest of the UK. England (and I guess Wales) recently started freaking out when they realized Yes might actually win. The offers of increased devolution were clear indicators of that. Cameron most certainly won't survive a Yes vote.