Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,912 Year: 18,948/19,786 Month: 1,368/1,705 Week: 174/446 Day: 70/104 Hour: 5/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do the Right Thing Tomorrow, Yanks
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 203 (679040)
11-11-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
11-11-2012 10:25 PM


Re: electoral college
There are no such matters.

Says a has-been toad in a little blue vest.

Anything relevant to a single geographic area is appropriate for the local government.

I'd be more than a little perturb to find the smooth four-lane highway I was traveling on suddenly switch into a single-lane dirt road upon crossing county lines...

Anything relevant to multiple communities as a whole is appropriate for the national government, because it's a problem faced by all communities.

... and I'd be equally perturb to find out that my Federal government didn't have anything better with which to concern itself than how comfortable my Thanksgiving drive back home was.

Seriously crash...

I didn't think your outlandish ignorance could get any worse than it already was, but seeing what you are proposing here really has me questioning that think.

Though I guess nothing ridiculous you say should surprise me anymore.

Jon

ABE: If you want to talk more about this, I think we should set up a separate thread for it. You can do it or I will.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 10:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 9:59 PM Jon has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 152 of 203 (679111)
11-12-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
11-11-2012 10:25 PM


Re: electoral college
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 10:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 10:03 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 153 of 203 (679203)
11-12-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jon
11-11-2012 11:54 PM


Re: electoral college
Says a has-been toad in a little blue vest.

You understand that I'm not actually a frog, right? That the image beside my posts is not a self-portrait?

I'd be more than a little perturb to find the smooth four-lane highway I was traveling on suddenly switch into a single-lane dirt road upon crossing county lines...

It would be, but why would it? Roads are exactly the sort of thing that is properly a matter for national authority. Why should the roads be different just because you drive on them from Minnesota to Iowa?

... and I'd be equally perturb to find out that my Federal government didn't have anything better with which to concern itself than how comfortable my Thanksgiving drive back home was.

Yet you drove home on Federal Interstate 35, probably. Or maybe Federal Interstate 94. I did all the time, when I lived in Minnesota. But I guess knowing about the Federal Eisenhower Interstate System - and you not having heard of it, apparently - is more evidence of my "ignorance."

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 11-11-2012 11:54 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Jon, posted 11-12-2012 10:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 203 (679205)
11-12-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by xongsmith
11-12-2012 1:08 PM


Re: electoral college
Even State government can't handle the regional stuff.

That's my point. Nothing is appropriately a state-level matter. It's either inherently local - an issue of circumstance related to conditions experienced only by a single locality - or inherently general - an issue faced by all communities. States only handle issues - like roads, for instance - because we artificially divide those issues up, hand them to the states, and say "ok, you handle this, but only for these randomly-selected geographically-proximate Americans and not these others."

I dunno, maybe you have to live in a city like DC to understand how fucking stupid that is. There's no purpose to having states.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by xongsmith, posted 11-12-2012 1:08 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 203 (679208)
11-12-2012 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-12-2012 9:59 PM


Re: electoral college
Why should the roads be different just because you drive on them from Minnesota to Iowa?

Because the Federal government has better things to worry about.

Yet you drove home on Federal Interstate 35, probably. Or maybe Federal Interstate 94. I did all the time, when I lived in Minnesota. But I guess knowing about the Federal Eisenhower Interstate System - and you not having heard of it, apparently - is more evidence of my "ignorance."

Ironically, management of the Interstates is within the hands of the individual States through whose land the Interstates cross.

You understand that I'm not actually a frog, right?

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

Jon

ABE: Continue here: Message 1

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2012 9:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 156 of 203 (679217)
11-12-2012 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NoNukes
11-09-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Nate Silver Is A Witch

Haven't seen O'Reilly yet, but I predict he'll simply dump all over the part of the electorate that Obama won. I have seen a bit of Hannity's ranting.

Absolutely right. Obama one because he promised minorities 'things'

http://www.rawstory.com/...ing-obama-because-they-want-stuff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2012 9:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 203 (679219)
11-12-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Jon
11-11-2012 9:39 PM


Re: electoral college
It is not the same as everything else. The method is unique to picking the pres and vice pres.

The issue as has been discussed here before is that adding in the number of senators distorts the weighing. If that were not done, everyone's vote would count about the same. More populous states would still get more electoral votes than less popular votes but proportionate with their populations. As things are now, empty states get more than their population proportionate share of electors.

One might argue that the senate is even further out of kilter than the electoral college. That is true. But it does not justify the distorted weighing of the electoral college.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 11-11-2012 9:39 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 203 (679222)
11-13-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by subbie
11-11-2012 8:38 PM


Re: electoral college
I suppose it depends on what is meant by make representation proportional for each state. If it means splitting electors, there is still the problem that states with few citizens get too many electors.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 8:38 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2012 6:37 AM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 159 of 203 (679264)
11-13-2012 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by NoNukes
11-13-2012 12:00 AM


Re: electoral college
Hi NoNukes

I suppose it depends on what is meant by make representation proportional for each state. If it means splitting electors, ...

That is what Maine and Nebraska do.

... there is still the problem that states with few citizens get too many electors.

Why is that a problem? This is due to giving states representation, as intended by the framers of the constitution, so that they are marginalized by the tyranny of the majority.

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 158 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2012 12:00 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 10:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 203 (680268)
11-18-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
11-13-2012 6:37 AM


Re: electoral college
This is due to giving states representation, as intended by the framers of the constitution, so that they are marginalized by the tyranny of the majority.

Except that with proportional splitting it does not do any such thing does it? Unlike the case in the senate, we only get one president at a time. Over emphasizing the smallest states when we use proportional voting just means that some people's vote counts more than others. But that does not mean that those folks are right, does it?

State representation makes some sense in the Senate because a faction can stop bad legislation from passing as long as they get a reasonable number of senators on their side. How would justice have been served by making up some goofy coalition that allowed a minority of the population to pick the president. The majority would then have no representation at the executive level.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2012 6:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by xongsmith, posted 11-19-2012 4:12 PM NoNukes has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 161 of 203 (680468)
11-19-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by NoNukes
11-18-2012 10:08 PM


Re: electoral college
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 10:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2012 11:36 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 203 (681159)
11-23-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by xongsmith
11-19-2012 4:12 PM


Re: electoral college
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.

The reason for increasing the multiplier is to offset the distortion created by adding in the extra two electors. Why would anyone with a 'Confederate Mentality' go for this?

With 1414 total electoral votes, the discretization works out to be a finer grained resolution of about 247,525 population per electoral college vote.

Totally unnecessary. Just changing to proportional representation (without the extra two electors) should be enough. Of course the result would be to emphasize an urban v. rural political divide.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by xongsmith, posted 11-19-2012 4:12 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 163 of 203 (682198)
11-30-2012 1:41 PM


Facing Up to the Enormity of Our Problem
I was trying to find a recent, still open thread, that was relevant to this article from the american thinker website. This is the only one that fits the bill. I know that this article talks about things in a broad, and generalized manner, and from experience here, that is what you guys will seize upon. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but I feel the general trend that this guy talks about is right on the money.

http://www.americanthinker.com/...ormity_of_our_problem.html

By Daren Jonescu

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2012 1:59 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 11-30-2012 2:30 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 169 by ooh-child, posted 11-30-2012 2:31 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 11-30-2012 3:31 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 11-30-2012 3:32 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2012 4:19 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 164 of 203 (682204)
11-30-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by foreveryoung
11-30-2012 1:41 PM


Re: Facing Up to the Enormity of Our Problem
So in summary what is the problem the world faces and what is your solution to it?

I'm intrigued....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by foreveryoung, posted 11-30-2012 1:41 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by foreveryoung, posted 11-30-2012 2:16 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2012 2:17 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 165 of 203 (682206)
11-30-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
11-30-2012 1:59 PM


Re: Facing Up to the Enormity of Our Problem
It isn't the problem the world faces; it is the problem philosophical conservatives face. The article is talking about the type of life conservatives enjoy living is rapidly going away and the chances of it ever coming back are slim. The "Our" is the title is referring to philosophical conservatives. That is the audience that the website is geared toward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2012 1:59 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nwr, posted 11-30-2012 2:28 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 170 by Theodoric, posted 11-30-2012 2:32 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 172 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2012 2:35 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019