ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th May 2019, 08:17 PM   #81
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,979
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Panhandle?
The Panhandle is consistently red. I lived in the famous/infamous I-4 corridor outside of Tampa.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 08:21 PM   #82
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,979
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Swing districts only matter on issues that are extremely divisive or controversial. And they play out exactly as one would expect on issues that are divisive and controversial. One faction achieves "victory" by a narrow and contentious margin, vast swaths of the electorate are dissatisfied with the results, and nobody is inclined to concede or compromise on anything.

The presidency is actually a good example of how to handle this kind of scenario. It's not permanent. Nobody likes the outcome? Fine, we're going to try again in four years anyway. And in eight years we'll undo it and try again regardless.

I wish all legislation were handled with the same attitude. If you have to wait for the perfect storm of like-minded legislators to gain majority and pass your bill, and even then it's a grinding political battle and half the country hates the result? Maybe you shouldn't plan on having that legislation persist any longer than your factional coalition does.

Anyway, I think there's something to be said for any system of government that does not privilege your vote over the votes of people that you believe have no business voting. That's just the Führerprinzip writ small. I'm glad that in this country, at least, it's still small enough to be easily suppressed at the polls.
I don't begrudge the morons I lived around voting. I begrudged that fact that the votes of those morons counted more than those of the 3 million people who didn't select the filthy Russian whore we now have in the Whitehouse.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 09:52 PM   #83
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,489
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
This is quite obviously not accurate.
How so? The Democratic candidate for President has won Illinois in the last 7 elections; it's not quite as safe as Massachusetts, but it's close.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 10:02 PM   #84
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,489
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We all get that the side the benefits from the EC is going to see nothing wrong with it and the side that doesn't isn't. We can just assume that and move forward.

The question is if it's fair or not.
Is it fair to allow a batter in baseball a walk after four balls, despite the fact that he can be struck out with only three pitches? I'd argue yes, because those are the rules everybody agreed to when they started the game. Do you think voters in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., would think it was fair to cut them back to 1 electoral college vote (or even less than 1)? Is it fair that Iowa gets the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 10:49 PM   #85
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We all get that the side the benefits from the EC is going to see nothing wrong with it and the side that doesn't isn't. We can just assume that and move forward.

The question is if it's fair or not.
I really do want to ask something different. im willing to concede to the side getting the benefits that their interests are fair and justified.

If they have the power to change it, how do they actually want it distributed? Surely their ideal system isn't the electoral college fixed at 538 with this manner of distribution?

It seems like their issue, for example, rural vs Urban, is a measurable quality. As such, the electoral college would have some value X, and there exists some value Y closer to ideal than X.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 10:52 PM   #86
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Is it fair to allow a batter in baseball a walk after four balls, despite the fact that he can be struck out with only three pitches? I'd argue yes, because those are the rules everybody agreed to when they started the game. Do you think voters in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., would think it was fair to cut them back to 1 electoral college vote (or even less than 1)? Is it fair that Iowa gets the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary?
I think fair is a terrible attribute in that scenario to emphasize because of the reasons you laid out.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 10:53 PM   #87
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How so? The Democratic candidate for President has won Illinois in the last 7 elections; it's not quite as safe as Massachusetts, but it's close.
Sorry, I thought you merely used Illinois and Democrats as an illustrative example:

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There are plenty of reasons for retaining the Electoral College:

1. Remember the Florida recount? Multiply that by 50 in the event of a close popular vote.

2. It limits the effect of any skullduggery that a corrupt party organization in one state can do. Let the Democrats resurrect everybody from the graves in Illinois on election day a la the Night King; it will not impact the EC vote one iota.

3. It gives liberals something to bitch about that they are never going to change, even with their popular vote interstate compact.
If such skullduggery happened by Republicans in Illinois (or by any party in any state they're not guaranteed to win) it quite obviously would affect the EC vote, as I claimed.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2019, 11:20 PM   #88
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Any system that would allow a directly elected leader to be voted to power when they had less actual votes cast for them than their opponent, is a flawed system.
And the United States doesn't have a directly elected leader. If it did, this discussion wouldn't be happening because the electoral college wouldn't exist.

Quote:
Most votes ought to win.... EVERY time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Maybe that works in a smallish country like New Zealand. But in the US, compromises were made so that people in rural Pennsylvania weren't totally voiceless compared to major population centers like New York City.

Quote:
But then, I think the whole US electoral system is a shamozzle, starting with the Senate. How can a system where a group of 700,000 people (0.2% of the population) is represented by 2% of the Senate, while another group of 40 million people (12% of the population) is also only represented by 2% of the Senate, call itself a Democracy.
Quite simply, it can't. And it doesn't.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 12:10 AM   #89
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,384
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Is it fair to allow a batter in baseball a walk after four balls, despite the fact that he can be struck out with only three pitches? I'd argue yes, because those are the rules everybody agreed to when they started the game. Do you think voters in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., would think it was fair to cut them back to 1 electoral college vote (or even less than 1)? Is it fair that Iowa gets the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary?
Yes, it would be fair. The concept of the EC is based on the underlying concept of having the President elected by popular vote, but using the EC as an indirect method, sort of how we don't actually have plebiscites in a Republic, but representative democracy.

The small states already get the as-designed unfair edge in the Senate. Why they should get the same in the House or EC is not in the realm of fairness but in the realm of a political decision to cap the House at a certain level. The House obviously needs to be re-set. The congress;citizen ratio should be equal to the population of the least populous state. Other countries manage much larger legislative assemblies. Our House (is a very very very fine house... tra la la) could be set at the WYp=1. Wyoming people = 1 Congressperson. That'd be 580,000:1 or 575 in the House. If you actually need to reduce it, you could base it on the voting age population and reduce that number by about 110 (the under-18 population of the US is about 22%).

All this would require Constitutional amendment, though. The easier solution is to leave the EC in place and launch massive movements to back state bills to assign EC votes based on statewide (not District) popular vote.

And it could pass with clever management.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 12:13 AM   #90
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What I hat about most arguments about the electoral college is that the side in favor of the electoral college often argue for a principle (state's rights or rural vs Urban or something similar) rather than the electoral college itself.

So let's take that out of discussion. For sake of conversation, let's concede whatever principle you want is correct (whether it is federalism, or identity, or even if you want your candidates to win all the time). State whatever you want.

Why should the electoral college be the system we use to achieve that?
I don't think that anybody defends the EC system in its current form. You are just stuck with it because you would never get enough states to agree to a specific alternative.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 04:59 AM   #91
IsThisTheLife
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So your encounter with two women, whose politics you are completely ignorant of, chiding you is somehow evidence of Australia being "ruined by ******* liberals and progressives"?
Don't be obtuse. They were examples of what, to me and many others, typify the kind of jumped-up, meddling, pain-in-the-**** 'public servants' that left-leaning government (particulatly local) employs in droves, in what often amounts to nothing so much as "make work" programs.
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:14 AM   #92
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Is it fair to allow a batter in baseball a walk after four balls, despite the fact that he can be struck out with only three pitches? I'd argue yes, because those are the rules everybody agreed to when they started the game. Do you think voters in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., would think it was fair to cut them back to 1 electoral college vote (or even less than 1)? Is it fair that Iowa gets the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary?
No. I don't think it's fair, sane, or smart for a Congressional District or Electoral Voting Block or any other form of codified representative political power in the system that represents 250,000 people to have an equal amount of say of one that represents 18 million people.

I don't care if the one person who represents the 250,000 people think it's just fair and peachy and dandy that they have the exact same amount as the person who represents 18 million, they are wrong. Fairness isn't "Ask the side who's getting the better end of the deal if it's fair." When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul always thinks it is fair.

"I represent the number of people who could fill 2/3rds of Indianapolis Motor Speedway on a good day" and "I represent the same number of people as the population of the Netherlands" should not be granted equal political power and I'll be damned if I can figure out how this managed to become a statement I have to defend to this degree.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 12th May 2019 at 05:18 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:24 AM   #93
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't think that anybody defends the EC system in its current form. You are just stuck with it because you would never get enough states to agree to a specific alternative.
Then I want to hear from the people that think the voting should be weighted to describe how it should be weighted.

I'm intrigued by that idea, but I'm tired of discussing a notion. I would like to see a formula.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:43 AM   #94
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Then I want to hear from the people that think the voting should be weighted to describe how it should be weighted.
I see no reason why the current weighting system should not be retained provided that each state allocated EC votes in proportion to the number of votes each candidate received. Perhaps they should use something like the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method to allocate EC votes. A vote weighting system like this was necessary to get the smaller states on board and I have not seen a good argument for abolishing this in favour of a straight national vote.

As a compromise, if nobody gets the required 270 EC votes then the top two candidates could face each other in a run-off election which would be decided by a straight national vote. That would ensure that the final process was "democratic" without disenfranchising the smaller states. Under this process you could be sure that Trump would not have prevailed.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:55 AM   #95
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,310
Plenty of people are defending the Electoral College.......from Democrats
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:58 AM   #96
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,310
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Under this process you could be sure that Trump would not have prevailed.

And this is the only reason why this discussion is being had........Trump.


This has very little to do with an actual concern with the Electoral College.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:09 AM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
So your argument is "The Republicans need an advantage because they know they won't win in an actual pure straight democratic vote?"

"My side might not win" isn't the same thing as "It wouldn't be fair."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:42 AM   #98
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
And this is the only reason why this discussion is being had........Trump.
My that's a long bow you have drawn. Sure, keeping Trump out might be a selling point for some but both candidates were as bad as each other and I don't care which one won.

It is not the first time that the EC system has produced anomalous results. GHB only won because of the hanging chad fiasco in Florida and in the past, the HoR has chosen a candidate who didn't get the most EC votes to be the president.

When it comes to electing the most important office in the land, shouldn't it be all power to the people?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:52 AM   #99
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
I wonder how many Republicans think they need to keep the Electoral College in place to protect "real Americans" from the busloads of illegal brown people the Democrats bus into voting booths that they still think happens?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:55 AM   #100
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I see no reason why the current weighting system should not be retained provided that each state allocated EC votes in proportion to the number of votes each candidate received. Perhaps they should use something like the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method to allocate EC votes. A vote weighting system like this was necessary to get the smaller states on board and I have not seen a good argument for abolishing this in favour of a straight national vote.

As a compromise, if nobody gets the required 270 EC votes then the top two candidates could face each other in a run-off election which would be decided by a straight national vote. That would ensure that the final process was "democratic" without disenfranchising the smaller states. Under this process you could be sure that Trump would not have prevailed.
Give me your no compromises, start from scratch, don't need to get stakeholders onboard, method of distribution.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:57 AM   #101
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Give me your no compromises, start from scratch, don't need to get stakeholders onboard, method of distribution.
Will you accept a "Well first we need a star with a mass capable of fusing heavy elements in it's core..." or are you just gonna demand we start at the Big Bang?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 07:30 AM   #102
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Give me your no compromises, start from scratch, don't need to get stakeholders onboard, method of distribution.
I don't understand. Every system has compromises. Just stick to the first paragraph if the rest is too complicated for you.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 08:34 AM   #103
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How so? The Democratic candidate for President has won Illinois in the last 7 elections; it's not quite as safe as Massachusetts, but it's close.
These days, yes.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 08:37 AM   #104
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't understand. Every system has compromises. Just stick to the first paragraph if the rest is too complicated for you.
You don't need to account for compromises in your proposal.

ETA: if you provide a formula, then we can account for compromises. Any two sets of compromises can be compared to each other by applying the formula and ranking them.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 12th May 2019 at 08:39 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 08:41 AM   #105
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The easier solution is to leave the EC in place and launch massive movements to back state bills to assign EC votes based on statewide (not District) popular vote.

And it could pass with clever management.
You're right, this would be easiest. After all, assigning all state EC votes by who won the statewide election is the way 48 states do it already.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 09:37 AM   #106
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,384
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
And this is the only reason why this discussion is being had........Trump.


This has very little to do with an actual concern with the Electoral College.
The conversation about the inherent fairness or unfairness of the EC has been going on for decades. It certainly doesn't originate with Trump's ascension to the presidency.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 09:56 AM   #107
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You don't need to account for compromises in your proposal.

ETA: if you provide a formula, then we can account for compromises. Any two sets of compromises can be compared to each other by applying the formula and ranking them.
I still don't understand your objection. As I said, retain the current weighting system but allocate the EC votes in each state in proportion to the votes each candidate receives.

If you don't want to consider what to do if no candidate gains an absolute majority of the EC votes then that's fine by me.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 10:03 AM   #108
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I still don't understand your objection. As I said, retain the current weighting system but allocate the EC votes in each state in proportion to the votes each candidate receives.

If you don't want to consider what to do if no candidate gains an absolute majority of the EC votes then that's fine by me.
I object to this artificial limit you are placing on your preferences by adhering to the electoral college structure. I want to understand the position of those who think there should be weighting in the system. And I want to see the idealized structure of that
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 10:16 AM   #109
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The conversation about the inherent fairness or unfairness of the EC has been going on for decades. It certainly doesn't originate with Trump's ascension to the presidency.
Personally, I've been annoyed ever since 2000.

...and that was before I discovered that the EC was a concession to slavery.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 10:48 AM   #110
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,489
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Sorry, I thought you merely used Illinois and Democrats as an illustrative example:



If such skullduggery happened by Republicans in Illinois (or by any party in any state they're not guaranteed to win) it quite obviously would affect the EC vote, as I claimed.
But it is much less likely that the minority party in any state would be able to pull it off, simply because they don't have the power. If it's my use of the Democrats that bothers you, suppose instead the Republicans in Texas enacted a really restrictive voter ID law that had the effect of disenfranchising a lot of Democrats. Again, very unlikely to affect the electoral college vote, but could have an effect on the popular vote.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 11:02 AM   #111
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
But it is much less likely that the minority party in any state would be able to pull it off, simply because they don't have the power.
If someone crooked is hellbent on skullduggery, they can focus their resources on just a handful of swing states.

https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylva...nv4-story.html
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 11:33 AM   #112
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I want to understand the position of those who think there should be weighting in the system.
No you don't. You want to disagree with them.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And I want to see the idealized structure of that
I don't know the ideal formula for vote weighting but the current one seems to do nicely.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 12th May 2019 at 11:44 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 12:49 PM   #113
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No you don't. You want to disagree with them.


I don't know the ideal formula for vote weighting but the current one seems to do nicely.
I wouldn't be able to disagree with it as I said in the very first post I am willing to concede any principle as true. Interrogate would be a better description.

To reach the determination that the current one does nicely, that seems like it would need the following..

1) a set of principles that identify an election system as capable of being nice

2) some benchmark to determine if it does nicely or not.


With one and two, the following seems straightforward and what I'm interested in

A) an articulation of that benchmark

B) elementary brainstorming of a few alternatives that also satisfy those benchmarks and that can be weighed against in eachother.

Digression: I don't even know how you are making determinations of niceness without the articulable positions to begin with.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 01:50 PM   #114
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I wouldn't be able to disagree with it as I said in the very first post I am willing to concede any principle as true. Interrogate would be a better description.

To reach the determination that the current one does nicely, that seems like it would need the following..

1) a set of principles that identify an election system as capable of being nice

2) some benchmark to determine if it does nicely or not.


With one and two, the following seems straightforward and what I'm interested in

A) an articulation of that benchmark

B) elementary brainstorming of a few alternatives that also satisfy those benchmarks and that can be weighed against in eachother.

Digression: I don't even know how you are making determinations of niceness without the articulable positions to begin with.
Or we could... not waste our time doing all that just so you can turn around and go "Hurr... durr... I don't understand... now explain the context of the thing you just explained and the context of that context... and the context of that context..."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 02:15 PM   #115
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Or we could... not waste our time doing all that just so you can turn around and go "Hurr... durr... I don't understand... now explain the context of the thing you just explained and the context of that context... and the context of that context..."
That would be difficult to do with a complete concession on principles...


...hint, that is why I did that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 03:51 PM   #116
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
But it is much less likely that the minority party in any state would be able to pull it off, simply because they don't have the power. If it's my use of the Democrats that bothers you, suppose instead the Republicans in Texas enacted a really restrictive voter ID law that had the effect of disenfranchising a lot of Democrats. Again, very unlikely to affect the electoral college vote, but could have an effect on the popular vote.
So? If someone wanted to corrupt the EC vote, they simply wouldn't bother with Texas or Illinois. They'd go for the swing states, as has been mentioned. Indeed, that could magnify the effect.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 03:53 PM   #117
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
And this is the only reason why this discussion is being had........Trump.


This has very little to do with an actual concern with the Electoral College.
Quote:
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

-Donald Trump

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...494082?lang=en

LMFAO!
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 05:11 PM   #118
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...38556504494082

For once, he's not wrong.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:09 PM   #119
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Is it fair to allow a batter in baseball a walk after four balls, despite the fact that he can be struck out with only three pitches?
I don't think the number of balls or strikes a player is permitted should be contingent upon his home address.

Likewise, I don't think that a voter's ability to affect a nation-wide election should be altered by where they happen to reside within that nation.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2019, 06:24 PM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I don't think the number of balls or strikes a player is permitted should be contingent upon his home address.



Likewise, I don't think that a voter's ability to affect a nation-wide election should be altered by where they happen to reside within that nation.
I bet you have no problem with UN votes being one per country, regardless of population.

Hell, I even bet you don't give a **** that UN votes are one per country, regardless of political system, human rights record, or anything else.

Last edited by theprestige; 12th May 2019 at 06:25 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.