|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do the Right Thing Tomorrow, Yanks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Hey CS, it's no longer Halloween already....
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Congratulations on helping make it a clean sweep of the fact that wherever Mitt Romney chose to spend time in the USA (Michigan, Massachusetts, California or New Hampshire) that NONE of them liked him enough. They all went Obama.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Coyote writes....Message 74 Coyote - first, thank you for being so civilized. I am used to a far fouler discourse elsewhere on these internets and I am always appreciative of your calm and measured posts. You are a valuable elder from my rookie's viewpoint. And, of course, your scientific background in this group has been extremely good. But....
But there comes a point where the electorate can't continue to vote for bread and circuses. As Margaret Thatcher is reported to have said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Maggie had it wrong. The possible trouble she imagines that could happen with socialism is not running out of "other" people's money. It's running out of "our own" money. It's a difference of perspective. Currently there seem to be 2 extreme camps: 1. This country should maximize the opportunity for everyone to live as comfortable a life as possible, even if it means that a few individuals may not be able to acquire an incredible amount of wealth. This has been stated as "We're ALL in it together." which is an exaggeration. 2. This country should maximize the opportunity for a few individuals to acquire an incredible amount of wealth as possible, even if it means that not everyone will be able to live a comfortable life. This has been stated as "Every man for themselves." which is an exaggeration, of course. Please rephrase in your own terms, if you disagree.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Here's another interesting Electoral College map, distorting state size by population (Romney's team has now conceded Florida):
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
The good Doctor asks:
I wonder if it is always possible (in every hypothetical case, I mean) to do that without leaving any holes, preserving the borders between any two given states. My gut tells me the answer is probably yes, but my gut is only 60:40 on the issue. Besides, it's occasionally wrong. Does anyone have any information on this: a theorem or a counterexample? The field of topology says ALWAYS POSSIBLE with the current rules & conventions they use to form a state in the USA. But consider some of these maps of Africa with Lethoso imbedded entirely within South Africa. Switzerland never had this happen to them. This must be related to the 4-color Map Theorem (proved now by proving that computer was going to prove it). But if we bring in Dedekind sets or weird shit like part of Tennessee occupying an interior region of Wyoming, for example, then, NO. WAIT. I'm wrong again here for Lethoso. Just make a blob within a blob. My Tennessee colony in Wyoming might be hard to distort without snapping one of the intervening borders into a situation where a state that used to touch another state no longer touches that other state, if the distorted population region had to be contiguously connected. So if they were to allow that, the answer is NO.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Crashfrog argues:
There are no such matters. States are simultaneously too large (they encompass too many different types of land and community) and not large enough (they don't encompass all instances of a land or community type.) Anything relevant to a single geographic area is appropriate for the local government. Anything relevant to multiple communities as a whole is appropriate for the national government, because it's a problem faced by all communities. Must respectively disagree. Even State government can't handle the regional stuff. When I was a Regional Planner, it was obvious that the locals towns could not coordinate planning optimally. Perhaps Crash might want to look into the field of Ekistics. If he has a degree in the subject, I could waver here - but I am not aware of such an educational background in Crash...- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Along with gradually changing each state to distribute their electoral count by the voting shares, you could also just triple the Representative contribution to the electoral total by state and leave the Senator contribution as is. While not perfect, it would reduce the Wyoming Effect. So now Alaska would have 5 electoral votes, while California 161. Since California's 161 would be divided according to the way the voters there voted, California would no longer enjoy the Big Enchilada status it has now. And Ohio might get a break from the mediots every 4 years.
Or double them, if tripling is too Extreme. Also, make this tally grow with population. Currently there are 438 Representives for some 350 million citizens, some of which are able to vote (others being too young yet). That's about 800,000 per Representative. In other words, the number of electors each states gets is Population/800,000 + 2. In my scheme, this jumps to some Population/266,000 + 2 for each state's electoral contribution. Then every census, adjust each state's electoral college portion from Representatives by this 266,000 rule. Keep the 2 Senator part to assuage the Confederate State mentality. With 1414 total electoral votes, the discretization works out to be a finer grained resolution of about 247,525 population per electoral college vote. But perhaps we also need to require that the total be an odd number? Round to the nearest integer each state's population/266000 count plus the 2 Senators and add them up. If odd, all set. If even add one more to the biggest (California today). Or even better, just skip the rounding off - making it floating point arithmetic. Population/266,000 + 2 = electors going to the electoral collage. Apportion this decimal point number by the percentages of each candidate. We can handle decimal places in these modern times. Maybe fix it to P/250,000 + 2. Then when the US population is 350 million, the total electoral college is 1500.00. The total number of Representatives would be roughly 350,000,000/750,000 = 467, slightly up from the current 438. Each Representative would be representing about 750,000 population. Each Senator would still be grossly at variance with a uniform representation and allow the small states to have their say.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024