More than half of arrested anti-Trump protesters didn't vote - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51372543]Venezuelan is something else, and is completely irrelevant to the discussion of this election. It's the equivalent of saying "THERE ARE STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA" when someone complain about the quality of the food you're being served. Tell me friend, how is it democratic that an Alaskan's vote weighs 3 times more than a Californian's vote?[/QUOTE] You are in a particularly dense mood today. [editline]15th November 2016[/editline] Whatever you say.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51372559]You are in a particularly dense mood today. [editline]15th November 2016[/editline] Whatever you say.[/QUOTE] Some say the the best retort is the one that cannot be argued, and by that logic this post is pretty good because it contains no argument. [editline]3[/editline] I'm in a pretty good mood today despite some of the things that hit me this month, so I don't know why you're assuming I'm in a shit mood just because I called you out.

[QUOTE=Cyanlime;51372245]You don't have to be a Hillary voter to have a problem with Trump, come on.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone was suggesting that. These people had no interest in participating in the democratic process, but they are going above-and-beyond in protesting the result of it? [QUOTE=sweetbro;51372196]i live in oregon and i didnt vote because its 100% likely the electoral vote is going democrat.[/QUOTE] What it goes to show is that those who didn't vote but went on to protest Trump do not care at all for being a part of a functional democracy. Sure, Oregon is a safe blue state so I can kind of see where the 'why bother with voting' attitude comes from, except those who didn't vote in the Presidential election (and you) also missed out on voting for the: - US House - US Senate - Oregon House - Oregon Senate - Governor - Attorney-General - Secretary of State - State Judges - Local Judges - Portland municipal seats - Seven ballot measures I'm pretty sure that not every one of those elections were safely going one way or the other.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51372288]Maybe they think trump will be a bad president. Also there have been trump protests [URL="http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadians-protest-donald-trump-in-toronto-1.3159131"]in Canada[/URL] so clearly people can still be invested in the election even if they did not vote. Unless you're telling me George Soros has his claws in Canada too.[/QUOTE] he's got his hands in a few countries. something tells me that demandprogress is more behind the canadian shit, since it's their playground.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;51372250] I can see why they wouldn't want to waste their time voting since they believe that but I think that voter apathy is what lead to us having to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich[/QUOTE] No, the constant 'every four years choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich' is a large part of what's caused the voter apathy in the first place. Follow that up with the electoral college pretty much handing the choice down to just a handful of states(Mine is one of those 'Fuck it it's 7:15pm we're calling them for the GOP' holdouts that probably would have voted for Trump even if he shot someone in cold blood on live TV simply for the sake of it. It's hard to get interested/to care about it when the electors in Tennessee are a foregone conclusion before it even starts. 2020 they'll go Trump as well, 2024 they'll go for whoever the GOP nominates afterwards, etc etc etc. IIRC TN hasn't voted blue in decades. Neither candidate bothered to campaign here, neither candidate bothered to run ads on any local networks. Get rid of the electoral college and you got a LONG way towards getting voters like me interested in actually bothering to vote. As it stands, I can't be arsed, my vote doesn't matter because I don't live in a swing state and that's not gonna change so long as the electoral college stays in place. Of course, I'm not [i]totally[/i] apathetic on this reason. I'm also apathetic because I see Congress not as a seat of power, not as a body that serves to govern and improve the lives of 330,000,000 people, maintain stewardship of one of the most powerful militaries and economies on Planet Earth, etc, etc. No. I see it as a daycare for 535 middle schoolers that giggle like idiots every time someone shows a picture of a rooster and goes 'heheh it's a cock'. That, too, makes me just not want to care. "But you can just vote in new ones that aren't bad!" Every time I look into electing new senators, new house reps, new presidents, I just see more of the same. More corrupt, immature, self-serving fucksticks that don't give a flying donkey dick about the plight of people like me who make up the bulk of the country and power the whole thing. I can't vote out the shitheads because the only choices on the ballot [i]are more shitheads[/i]. So why bother voting? Why bother choosing when all the choices amount to a steaming pile of diarrhea painted blue or red? I get the same result either way.

there are states that have voted solid blue for decades as well, this isn't a one-sided problem like you want it to be. also, as for shitheads, yeah but until you get off your lazy ass and do something about it, of course there will only be shitheads.

[QUOTE=BF;51372644]I don't think anyone was suggesting that. These people had no interest in participating in the democratic process, but they are going above-and-beyond in protesting the result of it?[/QUOTE] Here's my pet theory: They were lazy. Or they were disillusioned about the whole election. Then trump got elected on the 8th. That shocked them, terrified them into protesting. It's a very complex theory you see. I'm pretty sure Putin, Soros, and Obama are involved in it somehow. Lots of complex parts that your naive mind could not even hope to comprehend.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51372510]No one is paddling any agenda, friend. You ought to talk to a Venezuelan refugee for a change, before assuming I'm insinuating [I]anything but[/I] what I've said. [editline]15th November 2016[/editline] And please, spare me the electoral college drivel - whether you like it or not, it's still democratic, which is why I was upset at the fake pic using a Venezuela protest in which they are begging for [I]any kind of[/I] democracy.[/QUOTE] If Hilary won you wouldn't say she rigged it?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51372777]Here's my pet theory: They were lazy. Or they were disillusioned about the whole election. Then trump got elected on the 8th. That shocked them, terrified them into protesting. It's a very complex theory you see. I'm pretty sure Putin, Soros, and Obama are involved in it somehow. Lots of complex parts that your naive mind could not even hope to comprehend.[/QUOTE] Laziness is a pretty terrible excuse in Oregon. We have mail in ballots so you don't even have to waste hours waiting in line at a polling station or anything. You get your ballot in the mail, fill it in whenever, then mail it back. The only part that even takes any real effort is that for whatever reason the ballots aren't already postmarked so you have to go get a stamp in order to mail it in.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51372789]If Hilary won you wouldn't say she rigged it?[/QUOTE] One of these days you Facepunch kids will stop making assumptions to push your world views. You guys [B]REALLY[/B] need to argue based on what people actually say over desperately making up unrelated situations where you can hopefully make them contradict themselves. This is Debate 101, step it up.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51372288]Maybe they think trump will be a bad president. Also there have been trump protests [URL="http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadians-protest-donald-trump-in-toronto-1.3159131"]in Canada[/URL] so clearly people can still be invested in the election even if they did not vote. Unless you're telling me [B]George Soros has his claws in Canada too[/B].[/QUOTE] Uh, I mean.. But that's not really the point, I'm not criticizing everyone protesting Trump, I'm just saying if you're an American and you were eligible to vote but chose to abstain and then got mad when things didn't go your way, it's a bit stupid.

I was at the Portland protests. If you were arrested, it was because you breaking windows or looting a store - IE committing a crime. Nobody I saw and nobody I've heard of was arrested for holding a sign. That means it's a safe assumption that the arrested weren't demonstrators, but rioters looking for any excuse to steal a TV, which means they're too fucking stupid to care about politics in the first place - or better yet, have a prior record and [i]can't[/i] vote. Paid protestors my ass.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51372966]You don't have to help prepare the food to tell someone it tastes like shit[/QUOTE] No, but if you're so concerned with the existential threat Trump supposedly poses to the country, to the point that you're willing to riot in the streets and protest for his impeachment/resignation, why couldn't you be bothered to vote? [editline]15th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51372978]I was at the Portland protests. If you were arrested, it was because you breaking windows or looting a store - IE committing a crime. Nobody I saw and nobody I've heard of was arrested for holding a sign. That means it's a safe assumption that the arrested weren't demonstrators, but rioters looking for any excuse to steal a TV, which means they're too fucking stupid to care about politics in the first place - or better yet, have a prior record and [i]can't[/i] vote. Paid protestors my ass.[/QUOTE] That's a good point!

[QUOTE=MasterKade;51372306] Trump lost the popular vote by 1 million+ votes and won as a result of a bad system[/QUOTE] People seemed alright with this when it was Obama losing the popular vote but still passing Hillary over for the nomination

[QUOTE=Komodoh;51372834]One of these days you Facepunch kids will stop making assumptions to push your world views. You guys [B]REALLY[/B] need to argue based on what people actually say over desperately making up unrelated situations where you can hopefully make them contradict themselves. This is Debate 101, step it up.[/QUOTE] OH no that's not a baseless assumption It's one informed by; 1) Trumps rhetoric pre victory 2) Trump poster rhetoric pre victory I have seen him post similar things but I'm not going sifting for it [editline]14th November 2016[/editline] Also I do enjoy the irony of "you Facepunch kids" as a "non assumptive" insult

[QUOTE]No, the constant 'every four years choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich'[/QUOTE] Which is the fault of the voters. People keep voting for shit people due to the pied piper tactic politicians pull on the electorate every cycle. On the left, its "don't vote for me because im corrupt as all hell? Ok I ll let the bigots come take you away." On the right is " Yes Im shit but if you dont vote for me, the left will come take your guns, religion and money away (through taxes) " So the solution is create a new idea and platform for a new party which provides refuge for both sides while being something the opposite of what the democrats and gop stand for. The shit sandwiches and douche bags use the fear of discrimination from the other side as a method to continue to be a shit sandwiches and douche bags. Come together and destroy these boogeymen, and the shit sandwiches and douche bags will be held accountable.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51373042]OH no that's not a baseless assumption It's one informed by; 1) Trumps rhetoric pre victory 2) Trump poster rhetoric pre victory I have seen him post similar things but I'm not going sifting for it [editline]14th November 2016[/editline] Also I do enjoy the irony of "you Facepunch kids" as a "non assumptive" insult[/QUOTE] You also seem to always derail these kind of threads into huge unecessary arguments whenever people say things you dont like and you always personally attack them over their past posts in other threads instead of making real actual rebuttals.

[QUOTE=MasterKade;51372306] Trump lost the popular vote by 1 million+ votes and won as a result of a bad system[/QUOTE] 1 mil? I thought only a couple hundred thousand?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51373493]1 mil? I thought only a couple hundred thousand?[/QUOTE] They're still counting some votes from places like California iirc. It's currently at 600k+ according to wiki.

Brexit reaction 2.0.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51372553]Probably because that's a protection against tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTe] No The electoral college is a compromise to ensure that the smaller states are placated by having unproportionly high representation. Don't try and sell a bug as a feature. One vote being worth 3 times more than an other is not good

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51373603]No The electoral college is a compromise to ensure that the smaller states are placated by having unproportionly high representation. Don't try and sell a bug as a feature. One vote being worth 3 times more than an other is not good[/QUOTE] If the state's population is 3 times as small, it's not necessarily bad either. I think the problem lies more in it being all-or-nothing than the electoral college in general.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51373115]You also seem to always derail these kind of threads into huge unecessary arguments whenever people say things you dont like and you always personally attack them over their past posts in other threads instead of making real actual rebuttals.[/QUOTE] Lmao he's not the one calling people "facepunch kids" who don't know debate 101, who's slinging personal insults?

[QUOTE=MasterKade;51372306]This is only 112 people, and out of those 112, only 35 and MAYBE 17 didn't vote. and [URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=election+results+2016+usa&oq=election+results&aqs=chrome.0.0l3j69i61l3.1943j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#eob=enn/p/or/0/0///////////"]Portland, Oregon voted Democrat.[/URL] Come on dude Trump lost the popular vote by 1 million+ votes and won as a result of a bad system[/QUOTE] Reading the updated article, we can gather this much: 1. 34 of the protesters did not return a ballot for the election. This means they technically did not vote. 2. 35 of the protesters were not registered to vote. 3. Out of the total 112 protesters that were arrested, only 26 voted. 4. The remaining 17 are unaccounted for. If all of them voted, the amount of protesters who did not vote is still larger.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;51373678] 3. Out of the total 112 protesters that were arrested, [B]only 26 voted[/B].[/QUOTE] This is laughable. The importance of voting really needs to to be hammered home in education.

[QUOTE=CasualTR;51373899]This is laughable. The importance of voting really needs to to be hammered home in education.[/QUOTE] When someone says "don't vote for the other guy" all people hear is "don't vote" A negative campaign between 2 "bigly" unpopular candidates isn't going to get anyone excited about voting.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51373938]When someone says "don't vote for the other guy" all people hear is "don't vote" A negative campaign between 2 "bigly" unpopular candidates isn't going to get anyone excited about voting.[/QUOTE] This is one of the reasons Clinton lost; she didn't run a campaign like Sanders which was positive; no, she decided to run a negative campaign based only on defeating Trump. Just, how did anyone think that would work?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51373938]When someone says "don't vote for the other guy" all people hear is "don't vote" A negative campaign between 2 "bigly" unpopular candidates isn't going to get anyone excited about voting.[/QUOTE] This is partly what made Mitt Romney lose in 2012 (apart from being a shite candidate in general). The best argument he could come up with as to why people should vote for him was: "I'm not Obama" People figured the hell with it and just stayed home.

On one hand it's seems like a good idea to actually vote before escalating the election to a full-blown protest. It's certainly the most civil, easy and effective way to make your voice count. On the other hand Oregon was democrat anyway, so even if everyone there had voted this would have changed absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51372553]Probably because that's a protection against tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE] The results have become incredibly skewed, however. The electoral college was designed to grow with population, granting a slight handicap to less developed states by granting a guaranteed flat minimum of at least three votes. It was [B]not[/B] designed to be a straight multiplier to the voting power, it was just a minimum guarantee. As population sizes grew, the electoral college was supposed to grow with them. It became as imbalanced as it is today because the electoral college stopped adjusting with the population in 1913. In the 103 years since, populations have shifted dramatically. The electoral votes in each state no longer represent the populations of each state, meaning that many states have a comparatively huge ratio of electoral votes per person, whereas others have an incredibly small ratio. What was originally supposed to be a minimum handicap is now a gross multiplier. In short, the electoral college is broken because its balancing factor was frozen over a hundred years ago, when we stopped assigning representatives based on population sizes. Since it no longer dynamically adjusts based on population sizes, it does not reflect modern demographics, and does not properly distribute the electoral votes. At the [B]very least[/B], if we're going to have an electoral college, it needs to reflect actual population trends. If the total number of votes are locked, then assign the minimum of X per state, and then dynamically distribute the remainder based on state census data once every so often. Otherwise, if you really want to pull the power away from individual states, scrap the electoral college and give us an instant runoff popular vote, where majority rules. That alone would shake our bipartisan system up quite a bit by giving third party candidates a legitimate shot of competing.