Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

s13.postimg.org

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies.…

My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate. I think you've made some insi…

No, we don't have internet censorship in Australia. The idea was mooted and then shot down after backlash. That government was also voted out.

We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted.

Your comments about religion are inaccurate in that we do not allow our faith to dictate our politics in the same way as the US. A 2011 Census question put Christianity at about 60%, while in the US it's at 70%. We do not have parts of the country that have a reputation for being deeply religious (unlike the American South) and we do not reference a deity of any kind in any official pledge whatsoever. We don't even have a pledge of allegiance that we force on our children in schools.

Our country has real problems (i.e humanitarian treatment of refugees and the environment) but we aren't the kind of place you're talking about.

Our High Court isn't a political game, our banks didn't fall apart during 07-08, and our worst terrorist attack in the past 10 years wasn't even bad enough to be considered a "mass murder" under the FBI's definitions.

One key difference between Australia and the US is that our Parliament can be dismissed if they are at a gridlock. This prevents the kind of gross obstructionism that has prevented the US government from functioning properly in recent years.

The other key difference is that we have compulsory voting.

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#42
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate. I think you've made some insi…

No, we don't have internet censorship in Australia. The idea was mooted and then shot down after backlash. That government was also voted out. We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted. Your comments about religion are inaccurate in that we do not…

We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted.

Sounds like you're under some mistaken impressions about First Amendment law in the US, particularly doctrines such as strict scrutiny. But to be fair, I'm sure that's true for both of us.

In any case, you've made an impassioned defense of the lawmaking process in Australia, but failed to answer my question regarding whether RCV would actually lead to improved outcomes if implemented in the US.

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#44
post #43

Trump is an embarrassment for United States of America but we can't impose our judgment those who want to support and vote for him. Nor do I agree with Mark Zuckerberg that half the country Support this man.

Is that a royal we?

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#45
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Alleged serial sexual assaulter

*"Alleged" serial sexual assaulter who has bragged on tape about his pattern of engaging in sexual assault. Let's not leave that out. What he is being accused of is no more or less than what he has actually bragged about doing. Bragged about on videotape.

I believe what he said is "they let me do it because I am a star". I've seen perfectly reasonable women let guys with money and status do things they would say were unacceptable and outrageous if it was anyone else. I've also seen intelligent women go bonkers for low knuckle dragging men that treated them like crap and cheated on them and they knew it. Who am I to judge, relationships are personal business.

And here's the thing -- we all have equal protection under the law. If Trump ever did anything that a female acquaintance considers assault she has recourse under the law and should have gone to the police and not a newspaper 30 years later. Police will investigate the validity of your claims and whether or not your story has holes or inconsistencies. It's their job. If you move on without pursuing legal action then it cannot be said it was not acceptable because you accepted it.

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#48

When people say "half the country supports X candidate" I like to point out polls only count registered voters who are likely to vote, which is closer to half the eligible voting population (which of course doesn't include any of the non-adults). It's more like each candidate has support from less than a quarter of the population and most people don't support either. Somehow I find that reassuring.

Don't be daft. The non-voters are the ones who don't care. They don't care about xenophobia doing its thing. They don't care that Hillary may be corrupt. They don't care about the fact that Trump wants to carry out extrajudicial killings of people who might be related to terrorists. They don't care he wants more extreme forms of torture than waterboarding. Get real the people who aren't voting probably would make the…

Or they have given up on voting for a shit sandwich vs a dirty douche. Either way you vote you lose.

This covers a vast group of people in the united states.

As George Carlin (loosely) said: If you voted for the people in power, you have no right to complain when they do things you dont like. You voted them in. I on the other hand... Did not vote for them and have every right to complain about the mess you made and I had nothing to do with.

Re: Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation

#50
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't have internet censorship in Australia. The idea was mooted and then shot down after backlash. That government was also voted out. We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted. Your comments about religion are inaccurate in that we do not…

We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted. Sounds like you're under some mistaken impressions about First Amendment law in the US, particularly doctrines such as strict scrutiny. But to be fair, I'm sure that's true for both of us. In any case, you…

I wasn't trying to claim that Australia is somehow equivalent to the US in terms of what's protected (because it isn't - the US is undoubtedly more protective of speech than Australia), but more making the point that in the porn case we don't make nanny-state laws saying that X breast size is too small. Rather, content classification is taken on a case-by-case basis using the "We'll know when we see it" threshold that allows for some flexibility and common sense without needing to make all kinds of meddling regulations.

If adopted right now with no other considerations, preferential voting offers one big win for the US over the current status quo, which is that you'd be able to quantify the true level of support that the minor parties have.

If given the option of voting third-party without running the risk of vote stealing, I'm certain that tons of Americans would take that option. Right now Alice might want to vote third party but won't do it because she knows that people like Bob won't, and Bob won't vote third party because he knows that Alice won't do it. Preferential voting breaks that cycle because it doesn't matter how other people vote and allows people to just care about their own vote.

Both the Australian and US Green parties were founded in the 1990s, and the Australian Greens have been able to take seats and hold the balance of power at times while the US Green party hasn't been able to take a single seat at the federal level or in most states. I fully attribute that to the ability of preferential voting to let minor parties grow over time without fear of vote stealing.

There are also a few other things that Australia does with voting that I think make a lot of sense, but many of these don't really need preferential voting to be of value to the US:

  - All elections (local, state, and federal) are held on Saturdays. 
    I don't really think I need to explain why this is a Good Thing.

  - Voting is compulsory. For free speech advocates this is sometimes a 
    tough pill to swallow. However, compulsory voting ensures that people 
    of all economic backgrounds and living situations still turn up and vote 
    - without making it mandatory and forcing everyone to do it many people 
    simply won't be able to find the time to vote. You are still allowed to 
    cast an informal (and thus uncounted) vote if you *really* don't want to 
    express your political views.

  - You do not have to vote at a designated polling place - you are free to
    vote at any polling place on the day of the election without any 
    justification whatsoever for being out of your electorate, and you are not
    required to register for an absentee vote ahead of time in this case. Again, 
    this is a way of ensuring that as many people vote as is humanly possible. It's 
    also somewhat required here due to it being really unfair to force people to
    vote but then potentially turn them away for being in the wrong place. 
    (Electoral rolls are of course checked during counting to ensure that people 
    haven't voted at multiple polling places)

  - Funding is allocated to the recipients of first preference votes (as long as 
    there's more than a certain threshold). House votes are worth $2.60, Senate 
    votes are worth twice as much and the value is indexed to inflation. This 
    allows smaller parties to slowly build up a base over time without actually 
    winning the election to begin with.

  - We do not use electronic voting. Our elections have comprehensive paper trails
    that can be audited to ensure accuracy.
As for things we do that don't make sense with our voting system, one downside of a diverse Senate is that we have a ton of candidates. This results in something of an excessively large ballot paper! http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/03/11/1226594/7771...
Post reply on HN