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 12th May 2019, 07:36 PM   #121
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
This isn't a UN thread.
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, 08:19 PM   #122
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
This isn't a UN thread.
Yes it is. Each individual would have to articulate why their principles are so parochial that they cannot be extended to the UN.
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, 08:40 PM   #123
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes it is. Each individual would have to articulate why their principles are so parochial that they cannot be extended to the UN.
Why stop there? Explain to me why Jar Jar Binks gets to act as a senator in the galactic senate when he received zero votes!
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, 08:44 PM   #124
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
And before you ask: I have no opinion on that.
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, 09:00 PM   #125
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
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 gather that this is a philosophical view rather than a practical or logical one.
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 07:59 AM   #126
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
This isn't a UN thread.
It's a thread about the propriety of weighted voting. I think it's on topic to compare and contrast different examples, and examine whether stated principles are being applied consistently.
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
Old 13th May 2019, 09:01 AM   #127
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a thread about the propriety of weighted voting. I think it's on topic to compare and contrast different examples, and examine whether stated principles are being applied consistently.
That thought exercise you will engage in...


...but you won't apply those principles in generating theoretical models for elections.
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 13th May 2019, 09:58 AM   #128
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
...but you won't apply those principles in generating theoretical models for elections.
There is no point in me guessing what you mean because you will say I don't get it every time.

So I will ask you straight: What do you mean by "theoretical model"? (At least give us an example).
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 10:09 AM   #129
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a thread about the propriety of weighted voting. I think it's on topic to compare and contrast different examples, and examine whether stated principles are being applied consistently.
Yes I think countries with more people should have more say at UN votes, or at least as much as in any context I think the "UN" should be a thing in the way it is now which isn't a lot.

Tuvala has ~10 thousand people in it. It's 10,000 people should not get a say that is greater or different in how the entire world is run that the 10,000 people in any random small town anywhere in the world don't have.

Tuvala can make decisions on things that only effect that 10,000 people (within already established standards) all the live long day.

Same thing with the EC and Congressional Representation.

I'm not saying the ~570,000 people in Wyoming should have no or less representation in the government, I'm just saying they shouldn't more political power then the ~570,000 people that Milwaukee or Albuquerque have.

The ~570,000 people in Wyoming can have unequal distribution of power as to what happens in Wyoming. They shouldn't have... between 2 and 10% depending on how you want to look at it, over the lives of 327.2 million people. ~570,000 is a tiny fraction of a percent of 327.2 million and a "tiny fraction of a percent" is the amount of power they should have.

Long story short I reject the notion that political power is homeopathic, that it becomes stronger when the molecules are spread apart more.
__________________
- "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; 13th May 2019 at 10:12 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 13th May 2019, 10:23 AM   #130
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
~570,000 is a tiny fraction of a percent of 327.2 million and a "tiny fraction of a percent" is the amount of power they should have.
Is this an example of a "theoretical example"?

You would never have had a constitution if that was the mindset of the larger colonies and they refused to budge. The most likely outcome is that the weak "Articles of Confederation" would have been the only thing holding the country together and ultimately, the confederation would have broken down into colonies again and be ripe for a takeover.
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 10:26 AM   #131
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Is this an example of a "theoretical example"?

You would never have had a constitution if that was the mindset of the larger colonies and they refused to budge. The most likely outcome is that the weak "Articles of Confederation" would have been the only thing holding the country together and ultimately, the confederation would have broken down into colonies again and be ripe for a takeover.
If "Well we had to put that in the Constitution at the time as an appeasement" is the argument we'd still have the 3/5ths compromise.
__________________
- "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 13th May 2019, 10:30 AM   #132
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Also and seriously can we just drop the whole thing that our current state of power unbalance has anything to do with anything the Founding Fathers wanted?

I'm pretty sure they didn't account for an urbanized society or a situation where one state has .17% of the population and another has 12.13% of the population and we have to pretend they are same to 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 13th May 2019, 10:51 AM   #133
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,347
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If "Well we had to put that in the Constitution at the time as an appeasement" is the argument we'd still have the 3/5ths compromise.
I thought the 14th amendment changed all that (the constitution is alterable you know). Of course, a lot of states had to be disenfranchised before the amendment could go through.
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 10:53 AM   #134
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Also and seriously can we just drop the whole thing that our current state of power unbalance has anything to do with anything the Founding Fathers wanted?

I'm pretty sure they didn't account for an urbanized society or a situation where one state has .17% of the population and another has 12.13% of the population and we have to pretend they are same to be "fair."
Solid argument for breaking up those big states. I can understand why little states don't want to be combined but the big states ought to want to break up as it would increase there relative power in the senate and electoral college.
ahhell 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 13th May 2019, 10:54 AM   #135
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I thought the 14th amendment changed all that (the constitution is alterable you know). Of course, a lot of states had to be disenfranchised before the amendment could go through.
So basically "We ask the people who have more political power if they are okay with and they are so I'm at an impasse."
__________________
- "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 13th May 2019, 10:58 AM   #136
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Wink

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There is no point in me guessing what you mean because you will say I don't get it every time.

So I will ask you straight: What do you mean by "theoretical model"? (At least give us an example).
Any alternative system that accomplishes the goal.

For example, this one took 3 minutes....

Someone tells me small states should have more say that popular vote for president. How about this?

Every census calculate a state voter factor

( Population of most populous state/population of state X)*0.5=state voter factor

Each vote in state X is multiplied by the factor.

There are people in this country who want universal healthcare, and there are a multitude of papers and methods proposed on how to do it. There are many people that say states or rural voters shouldn't be drowned out. They don't seem to propose anything more than keeping things the way they are.
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 13th May 2019, 11:02 AM   #137
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Solid argument for breaking up those big states. I can understand why little states don't want to be combined but the big states ought to want to break up as it would increase there relative power in the senate and electoral college.
Every once and while one of those proposals will pop up, but they never gain traction.
__________________
- "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 13th May 2019, 11:56 AM   #138
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That thought exercise you will engage in...


...but you won't apply those principles in generating theoretical models for elections.
I think this thread is full of people who aren't interested in dancing to that particular tune. **** sucks, yo. Drink water and drive on.

---

Besides, I already gave you my defense of the EC. It's not the form of defense you wanted, but that's your problem, not mine.

ETA: Hell, I'm one of the only respondents who actually acknowledged your stipulations and answered accordingly. And yet you immediately started griefing me for not doing it right. The OP raised an idea that was interesting to me. Doing It Right According To Bob is not.

Last edited by theprestige; 13th May 2019 at 12:02 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
Old 13th May 2019, 12:04 PM   #139
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,637
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.
Just need to get Cali and NY people to start retiring to Montana, N Dakota, Wyoming etc.
lobosrul5 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 13th May 2019, 12:09 PM   #140
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,637
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Also and seriously can we just drop the whole thing that our current state of power unbalance has anything to do with anything the Founding Fathers wanted?

I'm pretty sure they didn't account for an urbanized society or a situation where one state has .17% of the population and another has 12.13% of the population and we have to pretend they are same to be "fair."
And the Connecticut Compromise had nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to do with protecting the rural "flyover states" from being ignored, which is the reasoning I hear why we need the EC. Virginia had by far the largest population at the time, but it was relatively rural compared to Penn, NY, Conn, or Mass at the time.
lobosrul5 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 13th May 2019, 12:11 PM   #141
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Just need to get Cali and NY people to start retiring to Montana, N Dakota, Wyoming etc.
As far as I can tell, there isn't a state west of the Mississippi that doesn't complain about the Californians moving there and voting for the same policies they've fled from in CA, except CA of course.
ahhell 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 13th May 2019, 12:13 PM   #142
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
How about this?

Every census calculate a state voter factor

( Population of most populous state/population of state X)*0.5=state voter factor

Each vote in state X is multiplied by the factor.
That seems a little extreme to me.

Under the current system, the people in Wyoming have 3.6 time the voting strength as the people in California in the POTUS elections. Enough that their vote can't be simply ignored but nowhere near enough to override the wishes of Californian voters.

Under your formula, the multiplier would be 68.6! Their say in elections would be equal to that of the Californians.
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 12:36 PM   #143
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That seems a little extreme to me.

Under the current system, the people in Wyoming have 3.6 time the voting strength as the people in California in the POTUS elections. Enough that their vote can't be simply ignored but nowhere near enough to override the wishes of Californian voters.

Under your formula, the multiplier would be 68.6! Their say in elections would be equal to that of the Californians.
We can quickly derive an initial factor based on your preferences.

Suppose there are only two states: Wyoming and California.

Suppose 100% of Wyoming voter favor person X.

Here are a few vote splits for California for person X and Y

49/51
45/55
40/60
30/70
20/80
10/90

Under any of those scenarios, should person X win?

What if we add a third state, Delaware, that is also 100% person 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 13th May 2019, 12:38 PM   #144
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Under any of those scenarios, should person X win?
The person who got the most votes should win, regardless of how it was distributed across the states.
__________________
- "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 13th May 2019, 12:40 PM   #145
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The person who got the most votes should win, regardless of how it was distributed across the states.
Nice joke post
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 13th May 2019, 12:54 PM   #146
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Nice joke post
Cute. Mask is slipping again.
__________________
- "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 13th May 2019, 02:45 PM   #147
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 534
This is about the Electoral College itself, not the way the votes are divided.

The electoral college was intended as a compromise between direct election and selection of the president by Congress.

Basically, given the time period, how could a voter in one state be informed about a multitude of candidates from other states? But at the same time, they didn't want a president selected by Congress as that would undermine the separation of powers.

As a compromise, each state would select electors who would then vote on president. The method of choosing the electors was left to the states. Not necessarily a popular vote.

Each elector was required to cast two votes, at least one of which was a resident of a different state from the one the elector represented.

Obviously, this is nothing like what we have now. Part of the reason for this is that political parties arose which made party loyalty the driving force rather than state loyalty, so it was changed in the 12th Amendment.

But still the idea was primarily a compromise between direct election and selection by Congress.

So, the question to answer as to if the Electoral college is outdated is if the ideas against either direct democracy or congressional selection of a president are outdated. I don't like the idea of congressional selection of President due to separation of powers.

But I think the idea that the average citizen will be uninformed is outdated. First, people are more educated and literate than they were back then. Second, we have more media so it's easier for people to inform themselves about the candidates. So I don't think there is a valid argument against direct election here.

The other functions the college serves, of course, are to give extra weight to smaller states and to allow states to vote as a block. (Winner take all) The first was designed into it and I can go back and forth on. The second, in my opinion, is the crux of most complaints about the system.

I doubt the winner take all idea was intended as the original design seems to have the college examining what was expected to be a large slate of candidates with the requirement that both votes could not go to a candidate from their state. But states figured out that they had a more powerful voice if they assigned all delegates to a single winning candidate rather than apportion them. I would like for this idea to go away for two reasons: First, it distorts the electoral vote margin further from the popular vote margin than even the small state weighting would reflect. Second, it is part of what effectively blocks third parties from arising.

To fix it, I think the simplest thing to do is require proportional allocation of electors. But I would modify the voting system so that a majority was still required in the college, which might not happen with proportioned allocation. This can be resolved within the college rather than in congress by essentially a ranked choice within the college itself. Electors for the candidate that got the least electoral votes would have to cast them for one of the other candidates.
TomB 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 13th May 2019, 03:20 PM   #148
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Basically, given the time period, how could a voter in one state be informed about a multitude of candidates from other states? But at the same time, they didn't want a president selected by Congress as that would undermine the separation of powers.
This is not quite the compromise described by James Madison, between slave states and free.

Which of the founders are you most closely paraphrasing here?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th May 2019 at 03:24 PM.
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 13th May 2019, 03:24 PM   #149
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
This is about the Electoral College itself, not the way the votes are divided.
Re-read the OP. It's explicitly about the way the votes are divided (or weighted, etc.).
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
Old 13th May 2019, 03:37 PM   #150
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is not quite the compromise described by James Madison, between slave states and free.

Which of the founders are you most closely paraphrasing here?
A lot of it is supported here: https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMAT...ge_history.php
Quote:
Origins of the Electoral College

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
And here: US Covernment Archives
Quote:
How did we get the Electoral College?

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”
TomB 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 13th May 2019, 03:41 PM   #151
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Re-read the OP. It's explicitly about the way the votes are divided (or weighted, etc.).
I suggest YOU re-read the original post.
For convenience, here it is:
Quote:
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?
Note that it says nothing about how votes are weighted.

Edit to add: When I said "This is about the Electoral College itself, not the way the votes are divided." I was referring to what I was writing, not the thread itself. Most of the controversy is obviously about either the weighting of votes or how the votes are divided within the states. Personally, I think the second is the most significant issue and hardest to defend.

Last edited by TomB; 13th May 2019 at 03:50 PM. Reason: Attributed OP to wrong poster.
TomB 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 13th May 2019, 03:43 PM   #152
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
A lot of it is supported here...
Quote:
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
Which of the founders came up with the favorite son argument?

Personally, I find Madison's reasoning somewhat more compelling than this, but I would be interested in reading an alternative view.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th May 2019 at 03:45 PM.
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 13th May 2019, 04:57 PM   #153
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Which of the founders came up with the favorite son argument?
I haven't located a name, though I did see an 1823 letter from Madison advocating districting which expressed concerns about geographical ties. (The letter actually, I think expressed concern about the winner take all system and proposed districts as a solution.)

But I've seen the favorite son effect referenced in other places such as:
Quote:
One of the reasons the Founders created the Electoral College was to prevent a Favorite Son effect, in which citizens of a state would vote for a candidate who is also from their state solely for that reason. But in fact, the Electoral College has turned out to promote the Favorite Son effect instead of suppress it. Note that every single President, with the exception of James K. Polk in 1844, has won his home state.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=996
TomB 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 13th May 2019, 05:09 PM   #154
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 534
As for the reasoning, there were multiple reasons. The two divides I have read were the most significant were those about method of selection (legislature or direct vote) and the north south divide (the slave counting issue you have been referring to).

Without looking it up, it occurs to me that the low population states are not necessarily who we think of now. They would have been the southern states that were more agricultural and had a large slave population.

Anyway, I was focusing on the who should select issue rather than the weighted influence portion of the issue. I can still, in current conditions, make an argument for the weighting. (I can also make an argument against it.) Here in Illinois, our politics are pretty much dictated by the large urban population in the Chicago area, but geographically, most of the state is agricultural. The two demographics are concerned with different issues and thus vote differently, but Chicago pretty much dominates.
TomB 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 13th May 2019, 08:15 PM   #155
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm pretty sure they didn't account for an urbanized society or a situation where one state has .17% of the population and another has 12.13% of the population and we have to pretend they are same to be "fair."
Whether they considered that possibility or not, it seems rather irrelevant since we don't pretend they are the same, either in Congress as a whole or in the electoral college.
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 13th May 2019, 08:21 PM   #156
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Every once and while one of those proposals will pop up, but they never gain traction.
I dunno. I was just out in Yosemite country a little more than a month ago, and on the drive from Merced to the park I saw several yard signs for the State of Jefferson.

I mean, if someone had some yard signs printed up it has to be something more than idle banter at the bar, right?
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 13th May 2019, 09:16 PM   #157
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
We can quickly derive an initial factor based on your preferences.

Suppose there are only two states: Wyoming and California.

Suppose 100% of Wyoming voter favor person X.

Here are a few vote splits for California for person X and Y

49/51
45/55
40/60
30/70
20/80
10/90

Under any of those scenarios, should person X win?

What if we add a third state, Delaware, that is also 100% person X?
Under your formula, person X wins in every case.

Under the present WTA system person Y wins in every case.

Under a straight national vote person Y wins in every case but if you include the Delaware result then person X would win in the first case.

If the EC votes were allocated proportionally then person X would only win in the first case (28+3 EC votes out of 60). If we add Delaware into the mix then person X would also win in the second case (26+6 EC votes out of 63). Note that in a real world result, Wyoming and Delaware would only give 2 EC votes each to person X so it would take both states combined override California and even then, only in the first case.

I think the latter system would be fairest. It would mean that a slender majority in a large state would not render the smallest states irrelevant but the small states could not override a significant majority in a large state.
__________________
"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; 13th May 2019 at 09:26 PM.
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 13th May 2019, 11:29 PM   #158
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Under your formula, person X wins in every case.
I didn't present a formula in the post you quoted. The point was the factors could be adjusted based on what that voter thought was fair out of those scenarios.

What I can't figure is why you constrain yourself to the electoral college model? For purposes of this thread we can scrap the whole electors and just have it be actual counts.

And under your system, how many electoral votes should there be?
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 13th May 2019, 11:54 PM   #159
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 didn't present a formula in the post you quoted.
Wow. Such dishonesty. Remember post #136?

No wonder nobody wants to engage with you. All you do is squirm.
__________________
"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 13th May 2019, 11:59 PM   #160
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Wow. Such dishonesty. Remember post #136?

No wonder nobody wants to engage with you. All you do is squirm.
It is dishonest to point out there was no formula in the post you quoted? You are the one who failed to comprehend post 143.
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
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 02:50 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.