The Electoral College
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:19 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 04:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  I'm not sure any more Vos. You're so goddamn aggro sometimes. It bugs the hell out of me. When you did the Trump bullshit dance your character seemed to change so radically that I felt like I hardly knew you any more, then you said your sorrys and carried on, but you seem to have retained your fascination with right-wing politics and other stuff such as your anti-abortion stance, as well as your ability to make snide remarks. It makes me think that you hid your real thoughts and just played liberal for a time, and that really you mostly think like Gilgamesh or the other far right weirdos. You were our friend and then you abused that trust. You think it's minor but I can't forget it easily.
Which do you think is more likely, that I've been pretending to be a liberal for the 4+ years I've been on this forum or that my general attitude and my views on certain issues have changed over the years? To put it into perspective, I was 17 years old when I made my first post on here, now I'm 21. It's completely normal for people to change as they grow up and while it's true that I'm less liberal now than I was when I first registered on TTA, I'm still a far cry from being politically right-wing. I'm an atheist, I'm pro-secularism, pro-abortion (as far as legislation is concerned), pro-gay marriage, pro-science, anti-war and so and so forth. The only notable right-wing positions I can think of are my stances on immigration, gun rights and SJW nonsense. As for that last part, I don't know what you expect me to do beyond apologizing; I moved on from that incident a long time ago. If you want to hold a grudge against me over it for years on end, that's your choice.


As the saying goes: "If when you are young and are not a liberal, you have no heart. If when you are old and are not a conservative, you have no brain" Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 03:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 02:58 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I meant it in terms of 306(56%) to 232(44%). The gap that makes the landslide purely in Electoral College terms.

Ah. Got it. 56-44 would qualify as a landlside in the popular vote so I can see that.

(21-12-2016 02:58 PM)tomilay Wrote:  It's entirely possible, I think even likely, that Clinton wins, if this Electoral College system were to apportion the votes proportionally instead of winner-takes-all.

Not sure what you mean. They already are proportional to the State population I thought. Do you mean something like Maine? The States can already do that if they choose. Or do you mean something else?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:36 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  As the saying goes: "If when you are young and are not a liberal, you have no heart. If when you are old and are not a conservative, you have no brain" Smile

The original quote is a lot funnier if you take it out of context. Big Grin

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.” - Anselme Polycarpe Batbie

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-12-2016, 03:42 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 02:58 PM)tomilay Wrote:  It's entirely possible, I think even likely, that Clinton wins, if this Electoral College system were to apportion the votes proportionally instead of winner-takes-all.

Not sure what you mean. They already are proportional to the State population I thought. Do you mean something like Maine? The States can already do that if they choose. Or do you mean something else?

Yeah, a bit like Maine. So if Trump gets a third of Illinois, he gets about 6.6 Electoral Votes from there. At the moment, he gets 0, even with about 39% of the vote in Illinois. With approach, it's possible for the winner to lose the popular vote, but less likely.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:22 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:01 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The idea that the popular vote win comes only from California is laughable. Why not Illinois and a handful of other smaller states? How does anyone decide this?

My choice is in a way arbitrary, and chosen in part for political affect. However there is a good reason I would pick California. One reason for its selection is the tantrums coming from liberal voters in that state that they want to break away from the union because of Trump's election (similar to Texas when Obama became president). However the vote margin really is rather extreme in that state in particular. It's not just the size of that state. It's also the huge margin that provided the numbers. No other state comes anywhere even close.

Here is a useful chart to see the vote margin which can be sorted by margin:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data....=0&elect=0

The top states providing vote margin were:
1. California, 4,269,978 Clinton
2. New York, 1,732,872 Clinton
3. Illinois, 944,714 Clinton
4. Massachusetts, 904,303 Clinton
5. Texas, 807,179 Trump
6. Maryland, 734,759 Clinton
7. Tennessee, 652,230 Trump
8. Alabama, 588,708 Trump
9. Kentucky, 574,117 Trump
10. New Jersey, 546,345 Clinton

From this data, it is clear that in a popular vote system, California, both because of its size and propensity to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, would have an outsized influence in the presidential election that would be more than any other state by far. The vote was 61.48% Clinton to 31.49% Trump.

Outsize, the way I understand it, would mean it has more influence than warranted. But if the influence is proportional to its population, that is not unwarranted. In fact, you should expect that, if every vote carries the same weight. There are better ways to ensure a well distributed mandate that don't involve eroding the value of some citizens votes.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
21-12-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:51 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:22 PM)BryanS Wrote:  My choice is in a way arbitrary, and chosen in part for political affect. However there is a good reason I would pick California. One reason for its selection is the tantrums coming from liberal voters in that state that they want to break away from the union because of Trump's election (similar to Texas when Obama became president). However the vote margin really is rather extreme in that state in particular. It's not just the size of that state. It's also the huge margin that provided the numbers. No other state comes anywhere even close.

Here is a useful chart to see the vote margin which can be sorted by margin:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data....=0&elect=0

The top states providing vote margin were:
1. California, 4,269,978 Clinton
2. New York, 1,732,872 Clinton
3. Illinois, 944,714 Clinton
4. Massachusetts, 904,303 Clinton
5. Texas, 807,179 Trump
6. Maryland, 734,759 Clinton
7. Tennessee, 652,230 Trump
8. Alabama, 588,708 Trump
9. Kentucky, 574,117 Trump
10. New Jersey, 546,345 Clinton

From this data, it is clear that in a popular vote system, California, both because of its size and propensity to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, would have an outsized influence in the presidential election that would be more than any other state by far. The vote was 61.48% Clinton to 31.49% Trump.

Outsize, the way I understand it, would mean it has more influence than warranted. But if the influence is proportional to its population, that is not unwarranted. In fact, you should expect that, if every vote carries the same weight. There are better ways to ensure a well distributed mandate that don't involve eroding the value of some citizens votes.



Regional parties was of major concern to the founders, and the electoral college system does make it more difficult to be that. The Democrats have found themselves to be primarily a coastal party (+ Illinois). The election results mean that in order to win the presidency, Democrats will be forced to find a way to get support outside the states in the regions they are strong in. That is good for the country, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:56 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:51 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Outsize, the way I understand it, would mean it has more influence than warranted. But if the influence is proportional to its population, that is not unwarranted. In fact, you should expect that, if every vote carries the same weight. There are better ways to ensure a well distributed mandate that don't involve eroding the value of some citizens votes.



Regional parties was of major concern to the founders, and the electoral college system does make it more difficult to be that. The Democrats have found themselves to be primarily a coastal party (+ Illinois). The election results mean that in order to win the presidency, Democrats will be forced to find a way to get support outside the states in the regions they are strong in. That is good for the country, I think.

I shouldn't say "parties", but regional factions since parties didn't exist at the drafting of the constitution. But regionalism was a big concern.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 03:42 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not sure what you mean. They already are proportional to the State population I thought. Do you mean something like Maine? The States can already do that if they choose. Or do you mean something else?

Yeah, a bit like Maine. So if Trump gets a third of Illinois, he gets about 6.6 Electoral Votes from there. At the moment, he gets 0, even with about 39% of the vote in Illinois. With approach, it's possible for the winner to lose the popular vote, but less likely.

Pretty sure the States can already do that but the existing parties have no incentive in that happening so unless grass roots activism at the State and local level can gain traction it won't happen. I don't see why anything needs to change at the federal level.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-12-2016, 04:50 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 04:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:42 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Yeah, a bit like Maine. So if Trump gets a third of Illinois, he gets about 6.6 Electoral Votes from there. At the moment, he gets 0, even with about 39% of the vote in Illinois. With approach, it's possible for the winner to lose the popular vote, but less likely.

Pretty sure the States can already do that but the existing parties have no incentive in that happening so unless grass roots activism at the State and local level can gain traction it won't happen. I don't see why anything needs to change at the federal level.

The desired changes at the Federal level, from what I gather, would be to give people a direct vote for President. The guy with the most votes wins.

The concerns, such as domination by big states can be taken care of by the Electoral College or some other mechanism. To win, the guy who gets the most votes, should also get a certain number, even 270 or more, of Electoral College votes.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 04:57 PM
RE: The Electoral College
(21-12-2016 04:02 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:56 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Regional parties was of major concern to the founders, and the electoral college system does make it more difficult to be that. The Democrats have found themselves to be primarily a coastal party (+ Illinois). The election results mean that in order to win the presidency, Democrats will be forced to find a way to get support outside the states in the regions they are strong in. That is good for the country, I think.

I shouldn't say "parties", but regional factions since parties didn't exist at the drafting of the constitution. But regionalism was a big concern.

If you look at the election map, you will notice that both candidates tend to get a fair amount of the vote, even in states they lose. The effect the Electoral College is to further suppress the incentive to vote. Republicans in blue states, Democrats in red states - they can both be discouraged to vote for President because it's a meaningless vote.

If you switch to popular votes, or even a splitting of Electoral College votes, you are likely to see closer races in the states, because every vote counts.

I don't get what you mean by regional factions(parties). Or what is wrong with them for that matter. I think it's a post-facto rationalization of the Electoral College of which there seem to be many.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: