Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Election 08 (Make your prediction)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 129 (488481)
11-11-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
11-11-2008 5:02 PM


RAZD writes:
quote:
A third (ethical) reason: making it proportional makes the votes in the small states just as important as the votes in the big states
Um, you do realize that the current method of voting makes small state votes much more valuable than large state votes, yes? Because the two Senatorial seats are included in the electoral vote tally, a smaller state with a smaller population means each electoral college vote is supported by a smaller number of people. You don't need as many people to vote for you in order to get the electoral votes.
Take the 2000 election. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. 147,947 people voted in Wyoming meaning that each electoral vote was supported by 49,315.667 votes.
California had 54 electoral votes at the time. 5,861,203 people voted in California meaning that each elector vote was supported by 108,540.796 votes.
Thus, a Wyoming vote is worth more than twice what a California vote is worth.
The worst? Massachussets. 1,616,487 voted for its 12 electoral votes making each electoral vote supported by 134,707.25 votes or just over a third of the value of a Wyoming vote.
Hawaii and Alaska's votes were worth quite a lot: .96 and .88 of a Wyoming vote.
If we're going to go with an alteration in electoral process in an attempt to help bolster third parties, I'd say we go to instant runoff voting. You don't vote for a person, per se, but rather rank the people on the ballot: first, second, third, etc.
You first apportion all the votes based off the first choice. If somebody gets 50% + 1, then they win. But if nobody achieves majority, then you take whoever was last and redistribute their votes to whomever was listed as second choice. If that still doesn't provide a majority, you eliminate the new last place person and redistribute the votes.
This process is used in many places here in the US for local elections.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2008 5:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2008 10:40 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 123 of 129 (488492)
11-11-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
11-11-2008 10:40 PM


RAZD responds to me:
quote:
For the same campaign effort in a large state to change it over to your party results in more bang for the buck. To break that pattern you have to change the large states to proportional voting.
Incorrect. It's the exact opposite. For the same campaign effort, you can get a smaller state to change over to your party and you get more electoral votes out of the process. It is because of the electoral college, because of the disproportionate advantage smaller states have, that candidates spend so much time in the smaller states rather compareed to the large population areas.
Clearly, big states are important because they have a lot of votes, but smaller states offer more bang for the buck specifically because of the two extra Senatorial votes.
quote:
Another possibility would be to have a series of rounds where you vote the worst candidates off the island, but I think this would be better as a model for primaries than general elections
Um, that's pretty much how the primary functions. McCain was practically out of it, out of money, letting his staff go...when all the other candidates imploded. They got voted off the island one at a time and McCain was left standing.
Note: The Republican primary system is proportional representation. That's why McCain was able to stay in it. Even though he wasn't winning, he was still racking up votes. The Democratic primaries are winner-take-all.
quote:
due to complications with the constitutional provisions.
Huh? There are no constitutional provisions for how electors are selected other than to pass that job on the States.
Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
That's it. There is nothing to stop a State from choosing its electors however it wishes. That was part of the issue regarding Florida in 2000: The Legislature was threatening to essentially discount the election and choose their electors through legislative action (which, since they were Republican majority, would choose Bush).
Nebraska and Maine, for example, don't do winner-take-all electors. They apportion their electors. Obama appears to have won District 2 (Omaha) which gives him enough to get an electoral vote...the first Democrat to win a Nebraskan electoral vote since Johnson.
Note, the Republicans are aware of this and sent their minions into California to get us to change our electoral method to proportional rather than winner-take-all. We were able to see through the dirty tricks, though, and rejected the proposal. The basic response was, "Do it in Texas first." If the Republicans really cared about this issue, then they should be willing to do it in their strongholds first and let California be the last place to decide it, or perhaps make it a national thing that happens all at once.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2008 10:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by fallacycop, posted 11-12-2008 1:26 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 125 by fallacycop, posted 11-12-2008 1:32 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 126 of 129 (488497)
11-12-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by fallacycop
11-12-2008 1:26 AM


fallacycop responds to me:
quote:
ou got that exactly wrong. The Democrat primaries are the ones that are (almost) proportional while the Republican primaries are (with a few exceptions) winer take all.
You're right. Absolutely right. I retract all of what I said.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by fallacycop, posted 11-12-2008 1:26 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 128 of 129 (488575)
11-13-2008 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by onifre
11-12-2008 6:10 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
"He is in the upper class", currently, better?
No, because you still don't understand that what you do with your money is just as important as how much you have. If I have a lot of money but don't use any of it for myself but instead live on subsistence wages, how can I be called "upper class"?
Nader is certainly in a unique situation. I definitely wouldn't call him poor. But "upper class" doesn't seem to fit, either. He lives off the public.
quote:
quote:
Last time I checked, poverty was a bad thing and having a good paying job was a good thing.
We were talking specifically about unions, and Obamas support of them.
Indeed. So unions don't work to decrease poverty and increase good-paying jobs? You find absolutely no connection between the decline of the union job in this country and the vanishing of our manufacturing business? The increased scarcity of the union job and the increasing wealth differential?
quote:
You can't argue against it.
You certainly can: "Unions don't result in a decrease in poverty or an increase of good-paying jobs. The loss of unions in our country has absolutely nothing to do with our increase of poverty and loss of good-paying jobs. In fact, unions are a hindrance to anti-poverty efforts and the creation of good-paying jobs." This would then be where you provide examples, but that's how you argue against it.
It's the same way you argued against the war. That doesn't mean you don't support the troops. It simply means that you don't think the troops are being utilized well by sending them into a bad war.
quote:
do you really think the unions are out to cure this epidemic?
I certainly think unions are part of the solution. Our economy worked much better when we had stronger unions.
quote:
Equally, do you really think Obamas support of the unions is to help people in poverty?
I certainly think it's part of it.
quote:
Once that propaganda gets out there there is a shift within the media to talk about it and get people involved, when SS is not broken, they just want to get that money into the market. Its all propaganda.
But the problem isn't that it's a "party issue." It's that the press is sleeping on the job, refusing to do any investigation that would come to a conclusion, and are so cowed by claims of "liberal bias" that they have become nothing but bad stenographers who hide behind "There are those who say" as if that were evidence of objectivity.
What do you think would happen if the press corps got some guts and said, "I'm sorry, but you didn't answer the previous question. I'm going to skip the question I had prepared and ask you to give an actual answer to it"? And if the report that happened later was, "The Presidential Press Secretary refused to answer questions about..."?
quote:
Im just saying to question their motivation, thats all.
Of course. But this is where examples would be helpful. Saying that "they both do it" isn't an example.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by onifre, posted 11-12-2008 6:10 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Granny Magda, posted 11-13-2008 6:31 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024