1756: "I'm With Her"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:40 pm UTC

Stargazer71, there is an active voter suppression system in the USA.

If you are in a poor and democratic leaning section of a republican state, it may be much harder to vote.

You are on the rolls and turned away? You are told by someone outside a lie about what forms of ID are required? There is a 7 hour line? Someone with a gun is asking everyone who they are voting for?

If you google the phone number, it goes to a website. On that website are "real stories" of difficulties.
radidoo200 wrote:
Yakk wrote:( lots of well reasoned stuff that I may not have totally followed, but think I get the gist of )
Thank you for that, I admit I had to look up "FPTP", but I think I follow you now. Very well, it is what it is. I'm also frustrated at the fact that I live in CA, so it really doesn't matter who I vote for, my vote is going to Hillary (which I can live with, it just bothers me that it works that way).
California is a perfect place to start a 3rd party.

Back a state-level Green party, or Libertarian, or a hybrid, or whatever. Get local councillors elected. Maybe form alliances with either party at the state level. Do primary attacks on state level reps (if that works in California). Be willing to cross-brand with major party members who agree to your "core pledge". Fund raise from rich people who agree with your "core" positions and want to influence your secondary ones.

Have explicit core and secondary policy positions. Insofar as you get power, be willing to "trade" for core policy positions.

This is a work of decades.

You might want to start from the "right", assuming that the Republican party looks like it is a short to medium term decline. A Libertarian-Conservationist party, for example, with policies like:
* Simplify the tax code. Next to nobody should need an accountant to do taxes.
* Reduce government waste (yada yada).
* Move federal revenue from Income to Carbon tax.

or whatever. Throw some right-wing stuff in with some green stuff and blend.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Vir4030 should clarify whether they're questioning Randall's integrity because he spoke out against Clinton in a past election because of her lack of political transparency or because of something else. In the mean time, consider that interpretation of Vir's post, next to the interpretation you've commented on.
So, having previously said I'd rather invest in Warren Buffett's new ethical share fund than in Richard Branson's new company, Vir4030 would consider me lacking integrity if I were to suggest to a friend today that he might do better investing in a Richard Branson company than in Zack Dingle's new get-rich-quick scheme?
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Stargazer71
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:47 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:
Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?


The kind who is being intimidated by outsiders trying to make them afraid to vote. Our country has a long history of trouble with that, and one of our candidates is literally encouraging his voters to lurk at polling places of people they don't trust.

The phone number Randall posted is for the national right to vote initiative, a watchdog agency that tries to make sure nobody is prevented from exercising their right to vote. http://www.866ourvote.org/


Ok sure. I'll buy that up to a point.

Glancing through their site however, it's not particularly difficult to find instances of people being ... well ... dumb. From their real stories page:

Michael L., Columbia Station, Ohio
"All I'm asking for is verification of who I voted for." Michael L., Columbia Station, Ohio


You voted for the person whose bubble you filled in. The intentionally anonymous nature of our voting system means that the government does not keep a record of who voted for whom.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby azule » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:50 pm UTC

IdahoEv.... I hope everything you said was accurate. Great info. My only issue was if we get rid of the electoral college then we don't have a backup for fixing a fucked up vote (we'll see if that's needed this Tuesday). So, not just getting rid of but replacing. What I'm talking about is similar to how California will vote by majority even if each section added up votes different. They can do that because it's what's right for that state and country and not just because the numbers forced it.

Sabina wrote:You know, Randall, considering the fact at your comics aren't nearly as good as they used to be, I don't think it wise to jump into the political foray and potentially alienate a portion of your readers. :roll:

Haha, great burn. I agree about it not being as good, but most projects only have one golden age. So it is what it is. Losing some of your audience because of what your actual beliefs are...imagine a politician doing that. Okay, you don't have to imagine that.... Let's not do that. I'm for encouraging our public figures to be bold.

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
PeteP wrote:About voting reforms, when you are already reforming you might as well get rid of electors while you are at it. Unless anyone actually wants them to make decision (in which case they should be campaigning) they are just an unnecessary complication. But I guess amendments are hard to make.


The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.

But couldn't the electors be elected by proportional representation on a state level? Instead of all or none? Besides, did this fix the nine states decide the election problem?

Haha, yes. Just 9 different states. Lesser populated ones.

yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.

Aren't most politicians?

KeyserSoze wrote:I'm sure I read on Twitter that two (Democrat) electors in Washington DC are promising to not vote for Hilary, even if their states go to her.

As a non-American, I don't understand how that is a) democratic or b) supporting the will of the people...

It was made this way to help prevent bad people getting into office, dictators. We might find out that it doesn't actually help prevent that, then we'll be unable to change the system.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:00 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Frankly, for my 2c, it seems like the democrat party has just decided that winning elections is a lot easier if you make everything about your opponent's character (Basically the Willie Stark approach to government: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.") I dream of the day when this fails to work for them.
Start of the primary season, 2008. John McCain.

Then they dragged him right through Obama's position and the US mainstream into the Standard Party Line Republican position and he got Sarah Palin as his VP nomination and *pow* there went your party's claim to be running sensible, smart, decent people with fine principles.

I still think a list of things democrats and republicans consider virtues would be very long, a list of things both consider faults would be long and the lists of things they couldn't agree how to place would be short. No professional politican focuses on the cross-party agreements, though. The capital-letter Democrats and Republicans put a lot of work into avoiding turning even slightly purple.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:01 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:The Electoral College is a travesty...
I'm going to disagree rather strongly with this. As preface, consider the argument that the World Series is a travesty of the same form. The series title goes to the team that wins the most games, not the one that has the most home runs. If they go 2-3 2-5 6-3 7-0 1-2 7-2 1-2, the right side wins four games to three. But the right side had only 17 runs while the left side had 26 runs. The unit of importance is the "game", not the "run", and the "subunit" is the run.

With the electoral college as it sits now (which was originally designed with a different goal in mind, but that's another story*), the unit of importance is the "state", somewhat complicated by the fact that each state is partly weighted by population. Like in the World Series, you can win without a majority of the subunits (popular vote), but you have to win a (weighted) majority of the states. This forces candidates to try to win over many different kinds of people, not just many people. (Assumption: people who live in different states have different ideologies - I know it's overly simplistic but it's not without merit.)

Were we to just go with majority of the country as a whole, a whole slew of states (ideologies) would get ignored as marginal. And while true that the present system puts the focus on "swing states", that's only because the other states have already decided. Their decision is no less important for having been already made.

As to having the electoral college be itself proportional (this is a state decision, not a national one), if every state did that, then there would be little advantage to the electoral college; its effect on the candidates would have been nullified.

Thesh wrote:Obama only needed 21.5% of the voters to win in 2012 - that is the wasted vote was 78.5%, meaning that there is a group of voters comprising 78.5% of everyone who voted in 2012 where it doesn't matter if any number of them stayed home
But you'd have to hand-pick those voters - you can't just randomly pluck out 78.5% of the votes and get the same effect. Because of this, those votes aren't wasted.

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?
I'm pretty sure this has to do with being able to register, to get to the polls, being rejected or intimidated at the poll site, overcoming physical disabilities, or any number of reasons that make it difficult to actually vote. And in addition to those problems, there are people with less than stellar mental capacities on both sides of the fence; no need to get huffy about it.

*The electoral college was originally set up to actually make the decision for us. We'd vote for smart people (by name) who would get together and decide who our next president would be. But with electors pledging their vote, essentially making their decision beforehand, we have lost that mechanism, and it is primarily a proxy at this point, though one with a still-desirable side effect.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ivnja » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Glancing through their [866ourvote.org -ivnja] site however, it's not particularly difficult to find instances of people being ... well ... dumb. From their real stories page:
Michael L., Columbia Station, Ohio
"All I'm asking for is verification of who I voted for." Michael L., Columbia Station, Ohio


You voted for the person whose bubble you filled in. The intentionally anonymous nature of our voting system means that the government does not keep a record of who voted for whom.

http://www.866ourvote.org/stories/michael-l This story? A potentially malfunctioning electronic voting machine left him without a way of knowing for sure whether the choices he indicated all went through. I'm glad my district uses paper ballots (which we then feed into a scanner), because I'm physically filling out the little bubbles myself. There's no ambiguity there. The touchscreen electronic machines are kind of a black box when there's no paper printout involved, especially if they're not behaving properly.
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby omgryebread » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:10 pm UTC

somitomi wrote:Not exactly the answer I was hoping for. I don't really like the idea of famous/popular people advocating politicians, I don't think "a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language" is the place to do that, and (as mentioned before) this also means no actual comic for today.
Not to mention the ensuing political argument
somitomi wrote:Not exactly the answer I was hoping for. I don't really like the idea of famous/popular people advocating politicians, I don't think "a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language" is the place to do that, and (as mentioned before) this also means no actual comic for today.
Not to mention the ensuing political argument


A comic about romance, sarcasm, math and language is exactly the place to talk about this election.

Romance? One of the candidates has bragged about sexual assault, and attacked other candidate's wives for not being attractive as his. Meanwhile, he opposes the right of people to get married to those they're romantically attracted to. Meanwhile the other candidate actually changed her position on gay rights (even when she was opposed she was never as virulently anti-gay as the other guy's pick for VP) and helped further gay and trans rights while serving as secretary of state. This election is about romance.

Sarcasm? One candidate has a habit of suing the press when bad things are said about him. He claimed that a satirical skit show's portrayal of him was a sign of a rigged election. This election is about sarcasm.

Math? One candidate has lied about the height of a building he owned, has lied about his own wealth, and has regularly in this election spouted off completely untrue statistics. His budget and tax policy don't add up. That candidate wants to divert funds from public schools to private schools that often have poor standards, especially in math and science (some of which outright teach creationism.) The other supports universal Pre-K, and helping people get a college education. One candidate denies the math and science behind global climate change, the other worked on climate treaties as Secretary of State and has a plan to help reduce carbon emissions. This election is about math.

Language? One candidate has disjointed, disorganized speeches. The only parts of his speeches with any subtly are when he uses allusions to violence or racial dogwhistles. He often refers to women with denigrating language. He seems to think that "lewd" is a new word. The other candidate's running mate delivered the first election speech in American history to be in Spanish, a language spoken by 45 million Americans. This election is about language.

This is an election about romance, sarcasm, math, language, and many more things. Why shouldn't Randall have something to say about it? Fuck this idea that neutrality is some beautiful and noble goal. Its easy for a lot of people to say "oh, he should stick to comics" or "Clinton and Trump are both bad, vote third party" because they won't be affected by the election.

But I'm in love with another girl, and that love is at risk from a side of this election that would tear our relationship apart if they could. I rely every day on medication that I could not afford without insurance. Medication without which I've tried to hurt others and have tried to kill myself. Three times. One side wants to take that guarantee of insurance away from me.

Thank you, Randall, for not staying silent. Thank you for defending me both by voting, and by encouraging and helping others to vote.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:A comic about romance, sarcasm, math and language is exactly the place to talk about this election.

Romance? One of the candidates [...] This election is about romance.
[...etc...]


Applause!

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Bob ArdKor
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Bob ArdKor » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

I'm not even american but seeing this comic today made me smile, thinking of the frothing, enraged trumpers yelling "but there is no joooooke!"

Never even posted in here, but I wanted to thank Randall for this post, and send my warmest support from France to the progressive people of the USA in these tough times.

Good night, and good luck :wink:

drifting
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drifting » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:24 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Stargazer71, there is an active voter suppression system in the USA.

If you are in a poor and democratic leaning section of a republican state, it may be much harder to vote.

You are on the rolls and turned away? You are told by someone outside a lie about what forms of ID are required? There is a 7 hour line? Someone with a gun is asking everyone who they are voting for?


It's actually quite interesting to see the US election turning into the sort of thing you see in Egypt or Zimbabwe. Almost karmic.

The most interesting outcome would be for Clinton to win the electoral vote and Trump to win the popular vote. Then we'll see if the US is any different to some of the countries they feel they need to keep interfering with.

J%r
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:02 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby J%r » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?


I suppose some people have problem with electronic voting, but usually then there is someone at the polling station that can help. The last thing you want is people calling someone in the booth, same for people taking selfies with their vote. I'm not sure how many candidates there would be on a ballet and if there is Donald Thumb or a Hillary Conton also on there.

I know a coworker told me once for which parties he voted (non-us). He voted for the green party and the pirate party on a paper ballot, which means he voted invalid as you can only pick one.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:32 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:Obama only needed 21.5% of the voters to win in 2012 - that is the wasted vote was 78.5%, meaning that there is a group of voters comprising 78.5% of everyone who voted in 2012 where it doesn't matter if any number of them stayed home
But you'd have to hand-pick those voters - you can't just randomly pluck out 78.5% of the votes and get the same effect. Because of this, those votes aren't wasted.


It doesn't matter how you view it - that's a measure of how responsive the voting system is to the electorate, and the fact that the number is so high in what is effectively a two-party system is pretty damning. There's also a much stricter measure (of my own design, patent pending) which is to find the number of voters who could not have affected the election by changing their vote. I call this "inconsequential votes", and it is probably isn't far off wasted votes (it's a similar calculation, except with wasted votes you figure Obama needs to beat what Romney got in enough states to get 270 electoral votes, for inconsequential, you figure Obama needs a simple majority in enough states to get 270 electoral votes, which is close in swing states, further off in blue states - either way, probably close to 70%-75% of the vote).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby azule » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:48 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:For hopeful consideration, but probably ignorable.
I try not to worry if I get ignored. It happens. Doesn't mean your statement was bad. Just not flashy or controversial enough. Which is an okay thing, too.

Velo Steve wrote:I will vote, and I will respect the presidency even if I don't agree with the winner.

Which means you'll vote for Hillary. We know what Trump said about accepting the outcome.

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?

I mean, is this supposed to help get the votes people who are too dumb to figure out that you just fill in the bubble next to the person you support?
Trouble like getting blocked from voting. See that part at the bottom about getting to vote if you're in line even after the "polls close"? That's just one example. Please don't be so close-minded to think that shit doesn't still happen.

Congrats, you're the first person to make me angry on this thread. :P
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Keyman » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

I have to vote for somebody. I cannot in good conscience vote for either of the two major political party candidates. I admit to a fairly Libertarian bend to my politics, and I can/do support most of the planks of their platform. I believe in a bit more of a 'social safety net' than that calls for, but....

On of my favorite authors wrote:
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”


For years, that was how I decided my vote. Until it struck me that there are more than two choices. (I actually live in a city where one of my choices for Councilmember was...Jack Sparrow - Pirate Party) Looking into what those other parties stood for, brought me to support the Libertarian party. So I've faced a lot of the 'wasted vote' rhetoric. The Libertarian bumper sticker response is "The Lesser of Two Evils Is Still Evil" and I do believe that to be true...but not especially effective as persuasion.

Today, I stumbled across this (led there from a link elsewhere here, different forum, about a totally different subject). Another of my favorite authors, one whose work I greatly admire, but with whose political leanings I don't necessarily have a lot in common. He said this:

We only have a two-party system because the two major parties have shown a reasonable ability to nominate credible candidates. In the past, when both the Federalists and the Whigs showed themselves to be out of touch with the people, or incapable of grappling with the real issues of the day, the American people discarded them.

That's right, we've always had a two-party system -- but it hasn't been the same two parties. When a party fails -- and as far as I can see, both parties have failed miserably this year -- then the American people seek out an alternative and elevate it to national status, restoring the two-party system by replacing the one deemed least worthy to continue.

-

If you vote for Hillarump at all, either one of them, you are acquiescing to the current system. Only by voting for someone else -- someone that everybody knows is better as a human being and as a potential president -- can we set in motion the change that must come if America is to continue to fulfill its position as protector of the astonishingly productive world economy and, wherever possible, the aspirational defender of human rights?


And so it goes...
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

I would have preferred a comic showing how each of the characters was voting and why.

Spoiler:
Cueball: I'm voting for Clinton, not because I like her, but because <huge rant about 2 party system and electoral systems>

Barret guy: I'm voting for <fantasy or sci-fi character> because <ontological argument implying he doesn't believe Clinton, Trump, Johnson, or Stein are real>

Hairbun: I'm voting for the candidate that reads more.

Ponytail: I'm voting to protect our right to build death rays.

Science girl: One subject shows distinctively more self-control than the other.

Cueball 2: Johnson, because I love both social and economic freedom as much as I love fencing and chair surfing.

Whitehat guy: Unfortunately, Trump because campaign finance and <emails rant>.

Blackhat guy: Both, several times, under false identities. Voting in camouflage in strongly democratic districts, and in drag in strongly republicans districts. I'm hoping some good solid evidence of voter fraud on both sides will start a civil war.
Flumble wrote:These past two years have been painful for me** because literally everyone in the Netherlands has been talking more about the travesty known as an election than about our own government. Think about it: the people we actually elect and who actually have a significant influence on our lives get less attention than two one foreigner running for president in another country. For two years. Our parties' campaigning lasts less than a year and they only get significant attention a couple of weeks before the elections.
Here's the plan:

On Wednesday we start a "Dutch national elections 2018" thread. I suspect many of us just like politics because it's a subject one can argue about endlessly without the transparent arbitrariness of sports.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Ken_g6
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:45 pm UTC
Location: in yer GPUz fakterin' primez in wardrobez

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Ken_g6 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

radidoo200 wrote:Really? You could have used your power to promote a 3rd party (any third party!) making a push to actually change this broken 2-party system. And instead you give us a boring endorsement for the usual lesser of two evils? Sad, sad, sad.

The American election system is really broken. If any third-party gets enough Electoral votes to prevent both of the two main parties from getting an electoral majority (and note that we don't elect the President by the popular vote!), then the President is chosen by the dominant party in the House of Representatives. :roll: That party is currently the Republicans, so Jill Stein doesn't stand a chance. :( If Hillary doesn't win outright (most likely), we get either Trump (second-most likely), Gary Johnson, or that other Republican running mainly in Utah.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby J L » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:Another note on a multiparty system. There's no guarantee it's really what you want. Maybe it will help but consider: legitimizing the Green and Libertarian parties ALSO means opening the door for legitimized white nationalist and fascist parties. And if you don't think those would win seats in today's climate, you haven't been paying attention to the sociopolitical drivers of Trump's success. Many European nations have systems that allow for multiple stable parties ... and they have many of the same problems we do, except with explicitly racist parties winning seats and being entites the government is forced to take seriously. I'm not certain that's worth it.


Striking a blow for multiparty systems: In Germany, we've been having a rather stable 5-6 party system for the last couple of decades. Recently, it has been fragmenting a bit, but it's still overseeable. And it works reasonably well. There's an electoral threshold of 5% of the popular vote a party has to reach in order to be taken "seriously", and as for outright fascist parties: well, you're not allowed to have those. Right-wing populists, sure, but you can't run a party the Federal Constitutional Court finds to be inherently unconstitutional. I know this collides with US interpretation of free speech, but we had our experiences with parties advocating and executing mass murder, so no. As a a result, about 60-80% of our parties tend to consist of grown-up politicians you can more or less entrust with running a country, even if you hate them, and no matter which coalition. And you can happily vote your conscience instead of the lesser of evils, and find yourself somewhat represented. Of course it's still frustrating as hell, but that's probably democracy.
Last edited by J L on Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

@Thesh:
Every vote beyond 50% is wasted, except you don't know which ones they are. This is nontrivial - if you already know the results of the election, you don't need to have it in the first place.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

E_H
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby E_H » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:04 pm UTC

Regardless of the vote, under 18 USC 2071 Mrs. Clinton isn't eligible to hold any office. Her exposing secrets to several other governments while taking many millions of dollars in bribes, funding ISIS, paying thugs to attack her opponent's rallies, electoral fraud in the primaries, creating the Muslim invasion of our allies in Europe and promising to duplicate it in the US - all these make her a domestic enemy of the United States, these facts were published and publicized, so under the Constitution's definition, all her funders and open adherents are guilty of treason.

That means their votes are invalid, no voting for them ever again. They must be tried, convicted and permanently disenfranchised. No compromise is possible. Allowing them to continue makes it certain that before this century is half over the posterity of the founders, for whom the Constitution was instituted, will be displaced and disinherited by invaders, enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.

User avatar
New User
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:40 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby New User » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:05 pm UTC

If you're in line when the polls close, they have to let you vote.

I'm disappointed that there is no source given for this statement. I can just imagine it now: someone is line when the polls close, some local official comes out and says, "okay that's it everyone, the polls are closed, you got here too late, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." And someone waiting in line responds, "you have to let me vote, it's my right! Because I was already in line, you see. I read it this morning in a webcomic."

To put it more broadly, we have so many rights and restrictions due to laws in America, that I don't expect the vast majority of Americans to be aware of every single right and restriction available to themselves or to others (since some people are subject to rights or restrictions that don't apply to others). The local officials at the polls might not be aware of this supposed right indicated by this webcomic. Even mentioning it in this comic seems to imply that there is an expectation that this right will be challenged. But quoting a webcomic as the source of your legal right seems ineffective in such a situation.

HelloMail
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby HelloMail » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:06 pm UTC

Just created an account to post this. I'm very conflicted by this comic.

Pros:
-You're helping people get out to vote, encouraging the vote
-Voicing an opinion

Cons:
-The endorsement
-The lack of comic

My stomach fell to the pit of my stomach after seeing this comic. I held Randall at such a high regard (I still do) with the creativity, the type of humor I enjoyed, the challenges, etc. The whole XKCD experience is just wonderful, but this puts a huge burden on it.

On one end, I kind of hoped there would have been no endorsements. Now when I read comics, I'll think 'this person voted for Hillary', which, as much as I hate admitting it, will color my opinion of future (and probably past) comics. I'm in no way a Trump supporter, but I'm also not a Hillary supporter. Randall can vote for whomever he likes, I have no problem with that, it's just the way he did it. There is also a part of me who kind of feels let down by the endorsement of Hillary.

There's a saying where I'm from: "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about what happens in the country".
There's another saying "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of who you think is best, you also shouldn't complain".

If people are voting based on lesser of two evils, I understand, I just don't agree, nor do I think it's the right thing to do.
If people are voting for either candidate, I would love to have a discussion with you. I promise, I won't bite, but everywhere I look, I can't seem to find organic conversations or discussions, which leads me to seeing only one perspective. I'd like to see the other.

I honestly wish I would never have known who Randall was going to vote for. If he had put it in his blag, I would have been much better with it. In a blog, it feels like he's expressing his feelings and wants to let people know. In a comic, it feels like he's using his influence/wide spread audience to influence others to vote, just because it's the XKCD guy, rather than reasons. It feels manipulative, and I feel a little deceived.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:10 pm UTC

Bob ArdKor wrote:I'm not even american but seeing this comic today made me smile, thinking of the frothing, enraged trumpers yelling "but there is no joooooke!"

How about people more or less uninvolved in the issue (as much as such is possible in this case) complaining about missing their prescribed dose of entertainment?
omgryebread wrote:A comic about romance, sarcasm, math and language is exactly the place to talk about this election...

...
Wow. I didn't expect such a spectacular counterpoint, and... well, it is compelling. I have the feeling that anything can be said to be about romance, sarcasm, math and language, if you look at it hard enough to find the right details, but your arguments don't seem forced. I still think this is little more than a simple campaign poster hung on a wall without any background (like this for example).
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord ◯‐◯―

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:11 pm UTC

E_H wrote:Regardless of the vote, under 18 USC 2071 Mrs. Clinton isn't eligible to hold any office. Her exposing secrets to several other governments while taking many millions of dollars in bribes, funding ISIS, paying thugs to attack her opponent's rallies, electoral fraud in the primaries, creating the Muslim invasion of our allies in Europe and promising to duplicate it in the US - all these make her a domestic enemy of the United States, these facts were published and publicized, so under the Constitution's definition, all her funders and open adherents are guilty of treason.

That means their votes are invalid, no voting for them ever again. They must be tried, convicted and permanently disenfranchised. No compromise is possible. Allowing them to continue makes it certain that before this century is half over the posterity of the founders, for whom the Constitution was instituted, will be displaced and disinherited by invaders, enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.

There, there everything will be fine, just let people who are living in reality make the decision.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

E_H wrote:
That means their votes are invalid, no voting for them ever again. They must be tried, convicted and permanently disenfranchised. No compromise is possible. Allowing them to continue makes it certain that before this century is half over the posterity of the founders, for whom the Constitution was instituted, will be displaced and disinherited by invaders, enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.


As a dual national American/British, I will lead the invaders and parasites.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:21 pm UTC

azule wrote:
cupric wrote:One of the reasons I've been such an xkcd fan for so long is that Randall is usually very good at avoiding this kind of childish crap, and not misusing the platform he has here.

Consider yourself dumped, Randall.


I don't know who you really are, but here I am, same person same account, stating my opinions on this comic without having to hide behind a fake account. It's not ironic to you that you are accusing him of being childish? He stated where he stood, didn't attack Trump and his transgressions...nothing else, not even an inappropriate and childish meta joke. Please reconsider how you view others if you think your reaction to this is anywhere close to making sense.


Huh?

I created an account because I didn't have one. I realize I don't have any posting history to lend context to my comments today, but I don't see what could justify an accusation that my account is "fake".

I suppose calling today's comic "childish" is unfair without knowing more about Randall's motivations, but it certainly gives the appearance of childishness. And it is, without question, absolute crap when compared to anything else he's ever drawn or written.

He could have taken the day off and just said, "No comic today, get out and vote!", but instead he parrots the slogan of a politician who he previously said has a "basic lack of integrity".

In my book, anyone who endorses a candidate with no integrity without at least some qualification, e.g. "but Trump is much worse", lacks integrity themselves. This election season has exposed a lot of people -- Democrat, Republican, whatever -- as lacking integrity, but I never expected Randall to add himself to the list.

Randall Monroe is unquestionably brilliant and has always seemed like a decent, well-meaning person in his writing and public speaking, but today's "comic" has me wondering what the hell is wrong with him.

FLHerne
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:44 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby FLHerne » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:21 pm UTC

E_H wrote:Regardless of the vote, under 18 USC 2071 Mrs. Clinton isn't eligible to hold any office. Her exposing secrets to several other governments while taking many millions of dollars in bribes, funding ISIS, paying thugs to attack her opponent's rallies, electoral fraud in the primaries, creating the Muslim invasion of our allies in Europe and promising to duplicate it in the US - all these make her a domestic enemy of the United States, these facts were published and publicized, so under the Constitution's definition, all her funders and open adherents are guilty of treason.

That means their votes are invalid, no voting for them ever again. They must be tried, convicted and permanently disenfranchised. No compromise is possible. Allowing them to continue makes it certain that before this century is half over the posterity of the founders, for whom the Constitution was instituted, will be displaced and disinherited by invaders, enslaved by parasites, left reviled and destitute in their own land.


Of course, if you don't pick arbitrary chunks of the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


Unlike Mr Trump, none of Mrs Clinton's loudmouthed opponents have found anything to even charge her with. Not even when the investigation is being carried out by a Republican-controlled Congress, or a Republican director of the FBI. Lots of innuendo, zero reality that wouldn't be laughed out of court. :roll:

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby J L » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:25 pm UTC

Ken_g6 wrote:If any third-party gets enough Electoral votes to prevent both of the two main parties from getting an electoral majority (and note that we don't elect the President by the popular vote!), then the President is chosen by the dominant party in the House of Representatives.


As far as I understood it, it would be a vote of the state delegations. It still seems unlikely that either Democrats or Republicans would ever vote for a third party candidate, though. As this page has it, a third party would either need to a) miraculously win the 270 Electoral College votes b) work very hard for a very long time in order to obtain the majority of seats in the House of Representatives or c) win the popular vote and "rebel". All of which doesn't sound very realistic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a US citizen, just been googling for a while.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:28 pm UTC

The current plot in Madaam Secretary deals with this very concept.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:29 pm UTC

New User wrote:
If you're in line when the polls close, they have to let you vote.

I'm disappointed that there is no source given for this statement. I can just imagine it now: someone is line when the polls close, some local official comes out and says, "okay that's it everyone, the polls are closed, you got here too late, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." And someone waiting in line responds, "you have to let me vote, it's my right! Because I was already in line, you see. I read it this morning in a webcomic."

To put it more broadly, we have so many rights and restrictions due to laws in America, that I don't expect the vast majority of Americans to be aware of every single right and restriction available to themselves or to others (since some people are subject to rights or restrictions that don't apply to others). The local officials at the polls might not be aware of this supposed right indicated by this webcomic. Even mentioning it in this comic seems to imply that there is an expectation that this right will be challenged. But quoting a webcomic as the source of your legal right seems ineffective in such a situation.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/help-strengthen-our-democracy/poll-worker-info/poll-worker-training-standards/section-two/ this mentions something for california and nevada Revised Statutes (N.R.S.) § 293.305 says the same so there are probably other states with similar rules. But I had trouble finding a statement that it is true for the whole US.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5478
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:39 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:Is there anyone else out there who would be a Democrat if they wouldn't try to run your economic life or a Republican if they wouldn't try to run your personal life?

That describes most Libertarians.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

gd1
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby gd1 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Weeks wrote:I'm voting for John Cena.

Now you're just stirring the pot.


I'm voting against pot! MWA HA HA HA!

More seriously, this is the candidate I endorse: Link
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:52 pm UTC

ucim wrote:@Thesh:
Every vote beyond 50% is wasted, except you don't know which ones they are. This is nontrivial - if you already know the results of the election, you don't need to have it in the first place.

Jose


I think you are missing the point even more now, so I'm not sure I can explain it to you.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:13 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I think you are missing the point even more now, so I'm not sure I can explain it to you.
Perhaps. If you're trying to calculate the absolute minimum needed to win, and then considering everything else "wasted", well, I think that's an interesting exercise, but it misuses the word. Suppose you do do that, and there is one more vote than was needed. Which one was it? If there's no answer, then "wasted" is the wrong word.

(Is this the political version of the axiom of choice?)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tallest Skil
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Tallest Skil » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:14 am UTC

PeteP wrote:<rant>God you "everyone pro clinton is a shill" people are so pathetic.

Try again with something that was actually said.

I mean you would have to be stupid to actually believe that low level mocking on a medium-small sized forum would be an efficient use of time for hypothetical shills.

We’ve already proven that they do it, regardless of its imagined efficiency.

Anyway serialtroll being a shill because

You don’t realize that it was a joke about his name? Like, you seriously don’t get that?

</rant>

Try facts next time.

PeteP wrote:There, there everything will be fine, just let people who are living in reality make the decision.

Cute, kid. I thought you might’ve been capable of actually holding a discussion, but you’re clearly as “triggered” as the strawmen you set up would have us believe.

FLHerne wrote:…zero reality that wouldn’t be laughed out of court.

So the fact that the FBI stated that she did, in fact, commit these crimes and that other people who did exactly the same things as her (and less severe) who have been punished therefor don’t come into play here? Awfully cute.

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:20 am UTC

ucim wrote:Like in the World Series, you can win without a majority of the subunits (popular vote), but you have to win a (weighted) majority of the states. This forces candidates to try to win over many different kinds of people, not just many people. (Assumption: people who live in different states have different ideologies - I know it's overly simplistic but it's not without merit.)

Were we to just go with majority of the country as a whole, a whole slew of states (ideologies) would get ignored as marginal.


A state isn't an ideology. It is a geographic location. We talk about red states and blue states, but the country really looks like a wavy purple sea with patches of red and blue throughout:

Image
(Cartogram of the United States, showing each county with a size proportional to its population. The colors reflect the 2004 presidential election results.)

State borders completely disappear. And this doesn't even show the real picture as it is only Republican vs. Democrat, while ideologies include a spectrum of views across many axes.

And while true that the present system puts the focus on "swing states", that's only because the other states have already decided. Their decision is no less important for having been already made.


Candidates spend almost all their energy in swing states, often making promises that only benefit the residents of those states. It matters.

As to having the electoral college be itself proportional (this is a state decision, not a national one), if every state did that, then there would be little advantage to the electoral college; its effect on the candidates would have been nullified.


Advantage? The only states that gain an advantage are the swing states, which do not speak for all Americans.

ycc
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ycc » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:25 am UTC

IdahoEv wrote:
Go read about Duverger's Law. It is well accepted in political science that a system with our (the USA's) voting structure has a single, mathematically stable solution: a pair of national parties. This is dictated by mathematics and game theory.

Until or unless our voting structure changes, the primary function of any third party is to siphon votes from the party most similar to them, which causes two things:

  • It causes the most-similar major party to win fewer elections.
  • It drives the most-similar major party the other direction, politically speaking.


We need more and better realistic choices, non-strategic voting,


I agree. But voting third party in national elections does not accomplish this: all it does is anti-strategically harm your own personal goals as above. This isn't a chicken-and-egg problem: the change to the voting system clearly must come first. When Nader threw the election to Bush (and yes, it's clear that's what happened) a LOT of smart people cried out for ranked balloting. Most voters still never even heard of it. We can't make the change from that direction.

If you want a more diverse political ecosystem, advocate at the local and state level for ranked balloting, Condorcet scoring, and proportional representation in your local and state elections. If enough of that happens, it might slowly help pull the country towards those (admittedly better) voting systems. There's no chance of a national movement for ranked balloting or proportional representation being successful until a large number of local & state experiences with those systems make the american electorate more familiar with them.

You pretty much said most of what I wanted to. Using the election to make a statement is a horrible idea. You want to use the time *before* and *after* to yell as loud as you want, but an election is a "game" (in the sense of game theory) with serious concrete results, and voting for your first choice (e.g. Bernie Sanders or empty vote) resulting in your worst option (e.g. Trump) winning is dumb. You are actively making the results worse for you. Ultimately, the rules we have means the rational choice is to vote for the most likely winner who you don't mind winning.

Here is a pretty standard video by CGP Grey on why First Past the Post sucks and why it's the root of our two party system (which is pretty much the only stable configuration under our election system): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo If you don't like the system, focus on changing the system, rather than the players inside who are just trying to win within those rules.

radidoo200 wrote:Really? You could have used your power to promote a 3rd party (any third party!) making a push to actually change this broken 2-party system. And instead you give us a boring endorsement for the usual lesser of two evils? Sad, sad, sad.


That's because the best time for discussing electoral reforms (which is necessary for 3rd parties to have any realistic chance of gaining prominence. You can't ask most people to vote for their favorite leader when he/she is for sure going to lose, and acting as a spoiler under the system resulting in a worse candidate winning) is *in between* elections. That's when things are stable, people are rational, and there isn't a freaking election going on. Yelling for changing how our elections should work *during* that election is like playing a football game, and complaining how many points a field goal is worth 10 seconds before you are going to hit it.

Velo Steve
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Velo Steve » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:27 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Velo Steve wrote:Is there anyone else out there who would be a Democrat if they wouldn't try to run your economic life or a Republican if they wouldn't try to run your personal life?

That describes most Libertarians.

Yes - I always check out the libertarian candidates, but they are too extreme for me. The web site I mentioned said I was a "moderate libertarian" but as far as I can tell only extreme libertarians end up on ballots.

Sorting Algorithm
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:19 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sorting Algorithm » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:28 am UTC

Bleh, another web-comic with a political endorsement.
If it has to be a political comic, I'd much prefer to see "Regardless of who your voting for, get out and vote" message.
I'd rather see a 90% voter turnout with my candidate losing, than a 60% turnout where my candidate wins.

And to add to the discussion, if I end up moving back to Seattle, I'll probably always vote a 3rd party candidate, since votes both major parties are wasted.
Last edited by Sorting Algorithm on Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:32 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

xtifr
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xtifr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:29 am UTC

Ok, so several people have asked why Randall would post this. I think it's pretty obvious. A lot of people believe this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION WE'VE SEEN IN DECADES. (People on both sides, I might note.) Randall is making it pretty clear that he believes this election is important, and wants people to know that he supports Hillary because he thinks that's an important thing to do.

"But it might drive off some of his fans!..."

I'm sure he is aware of that. MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES! Some sacrifices are worth it. Apparently, he thinks this is one.

"No one cares what he thinks!"

Then why are you complaining about his comic? Obviously, some people do. Some might even be influenced by his open statement of support. (That's clearly what he's hoping.) And even if they aren't, well, at least he can say he tried. One thing is for certain: any claim that "nobody intelligent would support Hillary" is now busted, because Randall is clearly intelligent and he supports Hillary.

"I don't live in the US, and I don't wanna hear about it!"

Tough! MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES! Randall's gotta live here, even if you don't.

"But Crooked Hillary!"

Obviously Randall does not believe those claims.

"He should support a third party!"

If he wanted to support a third party, he would. MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES!

Note that this post is not supporting (or opposing) Randall's position or endorsing (or condemning) Hillary or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that there are very obvious reasons why Randall did this.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Wowfunhappy and 123 guests