Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
74 online now:
jar, kjsimons, nwr, Pollux, Tangle (5 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Election 08 (Make your prediction)
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 6349
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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 122 of 129 (488485)
11-11-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
11-11-2008 9:15 PM


Um, you do realize that the current method of voting makes small state votes much more valuable than large state votes, yes?

Technically yes, practically no. 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.

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.

Yes, you and I could handle this, as could most people with a high school education. It is where I was last election on how to improve things (I can dig up those old threads if need be).

The problem is public inertia resisting change, and the parties would be against it and would be citing how much more complicated it is to get the final results (see IEEE voting etc).

This would just be a much simpler way to vote and to count the vote, and thus is much more practical in terms of getting the general public to go along with it.

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, due to complications with the constitutional provisions.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2008 9:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2008 11:54 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 6349
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

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 taken no action

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4752 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 124 of 129 (488495)
11-12-2008 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
11-11-2008 11:54 PM


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.

You 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. McCain won because he won more of the larger states (most importantly Florida and California). That's why the Democratic primary went on much longer before a winer finally emerged. By the way, Obama did it by wining most of the small states while keeping it close in large states and minimizing Clinton's advantage there. The Republicans prety much ignored the small states (except for the ones with early primaries). That is evidence that (yes indeed) the winer-takes-all system actually favors large states.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2008 11:54 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2008 1:39 AM fallacycop has taken no action

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4752 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 125 of 129 (488496)
11-12-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
11-11-2008 11:54 PM


double post

Edited by fallacycop, : removing double post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2008 11:54 PM Rrhain has taken no action

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 6349
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 taken no action

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 127 of 129 (488538)
11-12-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
11-11-2008 8:30 PM


But surely you understand the difference between "old money" and "new money," yes?

Yes, and...?

He doesn't come from the upper class, he eventually found himself there.

"He is in the upper class", currently, better?

Really?

Yes, I further explained that it could be a good or bad thing, depending on how you see. But, ok, we can disagree.

I just don't see unions working for the benefit of their works anymore, it has lost that quality about it. I was a memeber of Local 349 of the IBEW in Miami, capital gain is the bottom line, not workers rights. Go to any union hall and ask how many 'qualified' guys are sitting waiting for work, then ask how many executives in the union are sitting down waiting for work? If they even give you an answer, you will see the difference. There are two sides to the unions, the corporate side, and the labor force. There is a significant difference between the sharing of the wealth between those sides.*

*This is just my opinon having seen it first hand.

And financial gain is necessarily a problem, why?

See answer above...

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. Of course poverty is a bad thing, now you're arguing using propaganda tactics. It's like asking me, Don't you support our troops? Or, Whats wrong with patriotism? You can't argue against it. Like your statement, of course I don't think poverty is a good thing, but do you really think the unions are out to cure this epidemic? Equally, do you really think Obamas support of the unions is to help people in poverty?

Really?! Ok...

And is it not possible for people to be wrong when it comes to financial gain?

When they lose sight of basic human rights, it's wrong. When they lose sight of workers rights, then they are wrong. If financial gain is done at the expense of a financial down fall to a smaller groups, then it is wrong. When the financial gain bestows an enormous amount of power to one side, that in turn uses this power to manipulate governement for their benefit, they are wrong. I can go on, but I think you get the gist.

When trickle-down economics got shoved on us under the Reagan administration in the 80s, there were literally fewer than 12 of the 18,000 members of the American Economic Association who thought it could work. But the media, in their role as bad stenographer, simply reported that "There are those who say..." and thus made it seem as if there were an actual controversy over the Laffer curve.

I agree, that is the kind of propaganda tactic used to force peoples opinions. The same has been done with Social Security, saying that we should put the money into stocks because SS is "broken" and "we need to fix it". 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.

So just because something is about money doesn't people can't be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

Im just saying to question their motivation, thats all.

And I am questioning your logic in concluding that they "bought out" Obama. My original question still stands: Standing for a cause and then receiving support from the people who are affected by the cause means you've been "bought out"? There is no way for a group of people who want to have an issue championed to do so legitimately?

I understand what you're asking, for certain issues conditions are made for minorities to champion their causes. What I am questioning is Obamas support for the unions, but I hope I was able to present my case for that with my answers above.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2008 8:30 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2008 5:53 AM onifre has taken no action

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 6349
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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Granny Magda, posted 11-13-2008 6:31 PM Rrhain has taken no action

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 129 of 129 (488624)
11-13-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rrhain
11-13-2008 5:53 AM


Hi Rrhain,

I was interested in what you have to say about journalists abrogating their traditional role in favour of merely repeating claims as though they were robots. I pretty much agree with you that many journalists have lost touch with their true purpose, less so (I hope) in Europe than the US, but it is a problem everywhere.

I thought you might like to see this clip, which presents similar ideas. It is by Adam Curtis, the author of the controversial documentary The Power of Nightmares.

Curtis suggests that the fall of the Berlin Wall, coming as it did, as a surprise to most journalists, undermined their confidence in their ability to predict and describe the world.

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"?

Heh... This would happen. The good stuff starts about three minutes in.

A classic! We could do with a lot more of that sort of thing and a good deal less soft-soaping by interviewers. Some proper investigative journalism would be nice as well, instead of human interest piffle and empty rolling news.

Mutate and Survive.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2008 5:53 AM Rrhain has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022