International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation The Biden Presidency Part II (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351240)

SezMe 8th May 2021 07:19 PM

The Biden Presidency Part II
 
Mod Info This is a continuation from this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=347818

As is usual, participants are free to quote from. and reply to, posts in the previous thread
Posted By:Agatha






Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13474225)
Here, let me give you a concrete example.<snip>

Oh, I get that and agree. I thought you were talking only about redistricting within a state.

acbytesla 8th May 2021 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 13474804)
Oh, I get that and agree. I thought you were talking only about redistricting within a state.

Kool. I'm talking about dramatically changing the redistricting process.

gnome 10th May 2021 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13474376)
Fox outraged that Biden didn't mention God in his National Day of Prayer 'proclamation.'

Plus Obama only made 1 or 2 references.

Trump however made 11 references last year and 7 the year before, he's a 'true' believer and christian.
Biden is anti god and not fit to be president.

I always love this one. Clearly we should just abolish elections and measure how often someone who wants to be president says "God" or "Jesus" and they get to lead the executive branch.

Belz... 10th May 2021 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 13474235)
The problem here is that you base your opinions on reality. Conservatives do no such thing.

Reality's so overrated.

bruto 10th May 2021 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13475713)
I always love this one. Clearly we should just abolish elections and measure how often someone who wants to be president says "God" or "Jesus" and they get to lead the executive branch.

Don't forget the flag pin requirement too, though. Gotta remember to put on your flag pin!

gnome 10th May 2021 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13475915)
Don't forget the flag pin requirement too, though. Gotta remember to put on your flag pin!

Just one? What would you think of a candidate that just did the bare minimum?

Horatius 10th May 2021 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13475987)
Just one? What would you think of a candidate that just did the bare minimum?



I see what you did there.

dudalb 10th May 2021 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13474225)
Here, let me give you a concrete example. The most populous State in the country is California California has 39,510,000 citizens. It has a total of 53 Congressional districts. Wyoming is the least populous state with a hair under 579,000 citizens. It has one Congressional district.

Go back and read the Constitution. There never was a cap and representation was supposed to grow with the population. In fact, under the rules of the Constitution there would be thousands of Congressional districts not just 435. Population was supposed to be represented.

To get back to a fairer system I propose that we eliminate the cap and make each district equal the population size of the least populous state. That would mean 579,000 citizens in Wyoming would have the same representation as 579,000 citizens in California. As it stands today 579,000 citizens in Wyoming equals 745,471 citizens in California. California should have 68 districts. This not only makes a difference in Congress, it impacts the Electoral College.

It's worse than that as that 579,000 citizens of Wyoming get two Senators. The Dems can't do anything about the Senators since that is in the Constitution but an act of Congress can change the way districting works.

You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.

dudalb 10th May 2021 12:27 PM

Biden has a major foreign policy issue on his hands with the Russian cyberattack on the pipeline. This is a major escalation in the cyberwar. He is going to have to strike back someway.

JoeMorgue 10th May 2021 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13476039)
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?

I understand perfectly and think it's

A) Stupid
B) Should have gone away after half the states broke off and tried to fight a war over their right to own other human beings.

California's 40 million people should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be forced to be equal to Wyoming's *checks notes* 1.5 Indianapolis Motor Speedways at full capacity population.

ponderingturtle 10th May 2021 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13476039)
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.

So I will put you down as on the against voting rights act side. That kind of federal overreach is exactly what we don't need and we should be glad that the supreme court ended that foolishness.

Paul2 10th May 2021 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13476039)
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.

The proposal to set the size in population of congressional districts equal to that of the least populated state doesn't include the feds taking over anything from the states. The Feds already decide how many people are in a congressional district, if I'm not mistaken.

It's also doesn't take things away from the states, especially since the states are effected unequally by the current status (Wyoming has fewer people per district while California has more people per district).

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to determine a lot about elections, although the Feds can screw it up just like the states can.

JoeMorgue 10th May 2021 12:48 PM

I'm a radical because I think there's probably an imbalance of power at the Federal Level if a state can have exactly as many Senators as it has ******* ESCALTORS.

bruto 10th May 2021 01:34 PM

The system as it now stands is unfair both to many in urban areas in some ways, and to rural areas in others. It is, of course, unfair in a population sense that Vermont has two senators, and even our one representative is a bit out of proportion.

At the same time, in presidential elections, owing to the way electoral votes are bundled, every vote in Vermont is virtually guaranteed to be meaningless. If, for example, in Florida or another big winner-take-all state, the balance is near 50/50 and the voters in one electoral district vote one way by a slim majority, all that State's electoral votes go to the winner. While it's not always all that close, in theory a handful of people in one town in Florida can outvote my state by a factor of nearly ten (we have 3, they have 29).

So "one man one vote" is messed up in both directions.

I can understand a reluctance to give up States' rights, but at the same time a lot of the system was based on a free versus slave compromise, and at a time when communication and centralization were a lot different. We shouldn't need to appease the slave owners any more, and we shouldn't need to account for the time it takes for a horse to get from one place to another.

slyjoe 10th May 2021 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2 (Post 13476060)
The proposal to set the size in population of congressional districts equal to that of the least populated state doesn't include the feds taking over anything from the states. The Feds already decide how many people are in a congressional district, if I'm not mistaken.

It's also doesn't take things away from the states, especially since the states are effected unequally by the current status (Wyoming has fewer people per district while California has more people per district).

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to determine a lot about elections, although the Feds can screw it up just like the states can.

Only indirectly. The states get a certain number of districts allocated to them, but the states divide the state up into districts.

Horatius 10th May 2021 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13476118)
At the same time, in presidential elections, owing to the way electoral votes are bundled, every vote in Vermont is virtually guaranteed to be meaningless. If, for example, in Florida or another big winner-take-all state, the balance is near 50/50 and the voters in one electoral district vote one way by a slim majority, all that State's electoral votes go to the winner. While it's not always all that close, in theory a handful of people in one town in Florida can outvote my state by a factor of nearly ten (we have 3, they have 29).


Yeah, and this "Winner takes all" system almost all the states use is part of the problem. It amplifies small differences so much that small differences dominate the electoral landscape.

If they assigned Electoral College votes in proportion to the popular vote in each state, the EC would be much less of a problem, I think.

ponderingturtle 11th May 2021 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 13476368)
Yeah, and this "Winner takes all" system almost all the states use is part of the problem. It amplifies small differences so much that small differences dominate the electoral landscape.

If they assigned Electoral College votes in proportion to the popular vote in each state, the EC would be much less of a problem, I think.

I don't know if that would help or hurt really. It would lose the democrats a lot of EC votes in big states while picking up fewer from small states and the small state individual voters would be worth a lot more.


Though we wouldn't be able to say the election turned on x votes in this state or what have you.

Worm 11th May 2021 05:58 AM

It nearly always comes down to the same kinda Catch-22.

Any party with the power to change the election process has been elected through that process, and therefore has less motivation to change it.

Segnosaur 11th May 2021 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13476674)
I don't know if that would help or hurt really. It would lose the democrats a lot of EC votes in big states while picking up fewer from small states and the small state individual voters would be worth a lot more.





Though we wouldn't be able to say the election turned on x votes in this state or what have you.

While the Democrats might lose EC votes in places like NY/California, Republicans would lose them in vote-rich Texas and Florida. And since the Republican margin of victory was much slimmer in those states than the Democrats in NY/California, the republicans would have less chance to pick up seats.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

ponderingturtle 11th May 2021 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13476692)
While the Democrats might lose EC votes in places like NY/California, Republicans would lose them in vote-rich Texas and Florida. And since the Republican margin of victory was much slimmer in those states than the Democrats in NY/California, the republicans would have less chance to pick up seats.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Yea, I am just not sure who would come out ahead by the system.

Horatius 11th May 2021 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13476674)
I don't know if that would help or hurt really. It would lose the democrats a lot of EC votes in big states while picking up fewer from small states and the small state individual voters would be worth a lot more.


Though we wouldn't be able to say the election turned on x votes in this state or what have you.



It's not so much about "helping" or "hurting" one party over the other, it's about trying to get the Presidential election result that most closely matches what the majority of voters want.

Going through the vote total here, I apportioned all the EC votes based on the state-level vote results, rounding up for the overall state winner, and rounding down for the loser. There's a few of the smaller states where that causes an imbalanced shift, like going from 2.1 EC votes to 3, or going from .8 EC votes to zero, but overall it seems kind of balanced.

By my figuring, Biden gets 276 EC votes. When you look at the popular vote nation-wide, Biden got 51.3% of the vote, and out of 538 total EC votes, that comes to 275.994, which is stupidly close to the 276 I figured. Sure, he "loses" some EC votes, but it makes it far harder to flip this win with just a few percentage points of change in the smaller states.

Looking at the closest four states, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, a total of 137,492 votes switching would have flipped 53 EC votes, losing Biden the election. That's 0.088% of the overall popular vote, changing everything.

Yeah, I think I'd prefer my suggested system, even if it means the Democrats "lose" EC votes.

ponderingturtle 11th May 2021 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 13476733)
It's not so much about "helping" or "hurting" one party over the other, it's about trying to get the Presidential election result that most closely matches what the majority of voters want.

Going through the vote total here, I apportioned all the EC votes based on the state-level vote results, rounding up for the overall state winner, and rounding down for the loser. There's a few of the smaller states where that causes an imbalanced shift, like going from 2.1 EC votes to 3, or going from .8 EC votes to zero, but overall it seems kind of balanced.

By my figuring, Biden gets 276 EC votes. When you look at the popular vote nation-wide, Biden got 51.3% of the vote, and out of 538 total EC votes, that comes to 275.994, which is stupidly close to the 276 I figured. Sure, he "loses" some EC votes, but it makes it far harder to flip this win with just a few percentage points of change in the smaller states.

Looking at the closest four states, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, a total of 137,492 votes switching would have flipped 53 EC votes, losing Biden the election. That's 0.088% of the overall popular vote, changing everything.

Yeah, I think I'd prefer my suggested system, even if it means the Democrats "lose" EC votes.

Though you still almost get that with your system the shift of those voters would cause Biden to lose 4 votes putting him with 272 votes and 51.2% of the vote. It certainly would in no way prevent republicans losing the popular vote(which they really can never win anymore anyway) and still winning.

Horatius 11th May 2021 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13476740)
Though you still almost get that with your system the shift of those voters would cause Biden to lose 4 votes putting him with 272 votes and 51.2% of the vote. It certainly would in no way prevent republicans losing the popular vote(which they really can never win anymore anyway) and still winning.


But even at 272, Biden is still President.

Given the fixed minimum of 3 EC votes per state, no matter how small the population, no EC system will ever perfectly reflect the national level popular vote, but this system of apportionment would likely get it closer far more often. It also precludes the 2016 election scenario of Trump claiming a "landslide victory" after losing the popular vote, just because the inadequacies of the EC vote made it look like he got a lot more votes.

Another aspect of this is, it works against the notion of "wasting votes", or giving up on certain states. Current wisdom is that Republicans shouldn't even bother trying to appeal to Californians, or Democrats to Texans, as the odds of them winning those states are so small. But if we apportion the EC votes based on state-level popular votes, suddenly, campaigning in these states becomes far more important. If one party reaches out to the "lost" states while the other doesn't, that could give them a huge advantage.

And in the current political climate, that favors the Dems. In the current era of "Party of Trump", can you imagine any Republican supporting policies that would win over California Democrats? Not a chance. But Democrats winning over Texas Republicans might actually be possible.

Horatius 11th May 2021 07:47 AM

For those worrying about smaller states "losing influence", they'd still have influence disproportionate to their size, just not so much that they could hold the entire country hostage almost every election. To offset the 4 EC votes discussed above, you could have the Dems win over 5% of the vote in Texas and Florida, which would gain them 5 EC votes. But 5% of Florida and Texas is over a million voters, so those voters in those four small states still have nearly a 10-to-1 advantage in influence.

bruto 11th May 2021 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13476719)
Yea, I am just not sure who would come out ahead by the system.

Absent an actual popular vote count there will always be some issues, but the closer the system comes to the popular vote the better, I think.

gnome 11th May 2021 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13476064)
I'm a radical because I think there's probably an imbalance of power at the Federal Level if a state can have exactly as many Senators as it has ******* ESCALTORS.

The Escalator College is a critical part of the founding fathers intent!

JoeMorgue 11th May 2021 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13476784)
Absent an actual popular vote count there will always be some issues, but the closer the system comes to the popular vote the better, I think.

We've had the "Electoral College" debate on this thread a dozen times and every time that's always the excuse we get from the people who want Wyoming's 8 people and 3 buffalo to have as much power as California, we're not allowed to fix this system unless we jump straight to a perfect solution with no flaws at all.

It's anti-vaxxer logic.

Belz... 11th May 2021 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 13476774)
But even at 272, Biden is still President.

He's remarkably spry for 272.

ponderingturtle 11th May 2021 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13476798)
We've had the "Electoral College" debate on this thread a dozen times and every time that's always the excuse we get from the people who want Wyoming's 8 people and 3 buffalo to have as much power as California, we're not allowed to fix this system unless we jump straight to a perfect solution with no flaws at all.

It's anti-vaxxer logic.

And they still have that much power in the senate. People who live in rural states are simply more american than those who live else were. After all our founders never believed in this foolishness of all men being created equal.

SuburbanTurkey 11th May 2021 08:33 AM

Biden to nominate Rahm Emmanuel as ambassador to Japan.

Could be a controversial choice as the disgraced former Mayor of Chicago was instrumental in the attempted coverup of the police murder of Laquan McDonald.

Seems like an especially tone deaf nomination considering the current political climate and conversation around out of control police and the corrupt systems that protect them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...bassador-japan

Aridas 11th May 2021 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13476840)
Biden to nominate Rahm Emmanuel as ambassador to Japan.

Could be a controversial choice as the disgraced former Mayor of Chicago was instrumental in the attempted coverup of the police murder of Laquan McDonald.

Seems like an especially tone deaf nomination considering the current political climate and conversation around out of control police and the corrupt systems that protect them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...bassador-japan

Better than putting him in a cabinet position, certainly, though.

Segnosaur 11th May 2021 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13476840)
Biden to nominate Rahm Emmanuel as ambassador to Japan.

Could be a controversial choice as the disgraced former Mayor of Chicago was instrumental in the attempted coverup of the police murder of Laquan McDonald.

Ah, the Biden administration... when the selection of someone with a questionable background is seen as something negative, as opposed to being a highlight on the resume.

Certainly a dumb pick. But, the Biden administration does seem to be willing to make changes under public pressure, so maybe they will come to their senses.

Armitage72 11th May 2021 09:49 AM

Maybe it's that tactic where you ask for something horrible or outrageous, knowing that it will be rejected, at which point you then ask for what you really want and it slides through because it's a lot more reasonable than the first request.

Regnad Kcin 11th May 2021 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13476798)
We've had the "Electoral College" debate on this thread a dozen times and every time that's always the excuse we get from the people who want Wyoming's 8 people and 3 buffalo to have as much power as California, we're not allowed to fix this system unless we jump straight to a perfect solution with no flaws at all.

It's anti-vaxxer logic.

I am quite certain you have those numbers reversed.

Captain_Swoop 12th May 2021 10:27 AM

Governor Kristi Noem tweeted

@govkristinoem
Gas prices are skyrocketing. Gas shortages are hitting parts of America.

We knew this would happen when President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline and reversed our America-first energy policies.

ponderingturtle 12th May 2021 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13477998)
Governor Kristi Noem tweeted

@govkristinoem
Gas prices are skyrocketing. Gas shortages are hitting parts of America.

We knew this would happen when President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline and reversed our America-first energy policies.

Is she really that stupid or just thinks the American people are? The second one is probably true at least for republicans.

bruto 12th May 2021 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13478000)
Is she really that stupid or just thinks the American people are? The second one is probably true at least for republicans.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Resume 12th May 2021 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13478000)
Is she really that stupid or just thinks the American people are? The second one is probably true at least for republicans.

Yes and yes and yes.

bobdroege7 12th May 2021 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13477998)
Governor Kristi Noem tweeted

@govkristinoem
Gas prices are skyrocketing. Gas shortages are hitting parts of America.

We knew this would happen when President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline and reversed our America-first energy policies.

I would be in favor of the Keystone pipeline if it was pumping gas.

Since it would have pumped sand, I am aghast that anyone would think that was a good idea.

Horatius 12th May 2021 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13478000)
Is she really that stupid or just thinks the American people are? The second one is probably true at least for republicans.


I was just reading a thread over on reddit asking how life was in the US under Biden.

Take a guess how many of the posts included complaints about gas prices. Just guess.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.