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.
Tags 2016 election results , 2016 elections , donald trump , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 9th November 2016, 04:24 PM   #281
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,448
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How would you make it work for 50 states?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. That is the system they currently use AIUI. The number of EC votes depend on that state's number of Senators and House Reps, which I think might be ultimately dependent on population.

Are you asking me how I would change it and still have it work for 50 states?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:29 PM   #282
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
There is nothing Trump, or any politician, can do to help them. They are uneducated in an information age and under-skilled in a global economy. They are screwed and nothing can change that. Their jobs and way of life can no more be brought back by any political policy than we can stop puberty or the tides with a new law.

So, considering their way of life and small town economy are inevitably doomed, I had hoped they would vote for larger issues of progress and equality and not for their own personal wants and needs.
Look at the data county by county nationwide. Not one county with a college of any size went red.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:32 PM   #283
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,448
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
First, each state can allocate their electoral college delegates however they wish. The simple majority rule is not required and two states do not use it.
OK, but as far as the Presidential race is concerned, is my understanding correct; that if a party wins a state then, regardless of the winning margin, all that state's EC votes go to that party's candidate?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:33 PM   #284
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,149
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. That is the system they currently use AIUI. The number of EC votes depend on that state's number of Senators and House Reps, which I think might be ultimately dependent on population.

Are you asking me how I would change it and still have it work for 50 states?
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:34 PM   #285
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No and neither is states like Montana, North Dakota and Alaska all having less than 1/53 rd the population of California yet all having the same number of Senators (2)in the US Senate. Or DC having no Congressmen or Senators at all and they have a larger population than Wyoming which has 2 Senators and a Congressman.

There are all kinds of unusual idiosyncrasies in the government of the United States. Our form of government stinks. It's been copied, but not very successfully. It is shocking in many ways that it has survived this long. Parliamentary systems are better in my opinion.
You would think right thinking conservatives would be against the Electoral College. Twice in the past 16 years it has enforced the will of a minority on the country.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:36 PM   #286
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
OK, but as far as the Presidential race is concerned, is my understanding correct; that if a party wins a state then, regardless of the winning margin, all that state's EC votes go to that party's candidate?
No, in Maine and I think Nebraska, each congressional district gets 1. You win the district you get 1 and then 2 go to the overall state winner.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:45 PM   #287
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Your idea of "will receive attention" sounds outright dangerous, if not condescending. You are using the excuse that if one has done one unbigoted thing, one can no longer be or act a bigot.
I don't know how you got there from what I said. I'm not presenting any excuse, and I'm most definitely not presenting *that* excuse. Seriously, all I said was that this is already a hot social topic, it's already a thing under scrutiny. There are already investigations beginning, and they will (and should) continue. Whether it's Trump or Clinton in office is going to have absolutely zero impact on the progress we do or don't make with respect to racial equality. The government aspect of this issue has been done, it's a social issue now. And it will continue to move forward with all the growing pains, challenges, and false starts that we're seeing. Trump isn't going to be able to stop that. He isn't even going to be able to influence it. The US isn't going to magically turn back into a racist, segregationist country. Not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
In response to unfiltered fear mongering, not fact.
Okaaaayyyyy I suppose. I mean, it's not like it's been almost exclusively democrats who have proposed and enacted the various bans and restrictions we've seen in my lifetime. Right? Right????

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Well, econ is not your strong suit, I reckon.
You really seem to be in assuming that my perception of what many americans want is the same as what I want.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Sorry, but anyone who paid attention in 10th grade European History class knows enough. I studied that in the US. At public school. What, they only thumb-suck and pop opiates, now?
What does this even mean? What does 10th grade history have to do with it? Does that somehow make it acceptable and palatable that a pile of liberals are busy slathering condescension on half the population?

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
None. There is a global labor surplus. I believe this was discussed some time ago on ISF wrt to unemployment insurance and so on. Very different approaches will be needed. Right now, with structural issues unattended, you get the highly and increasingly disparate incomes.
I genuinely have no idea what this has to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Given that the very real issues America faces actually relate to becoming a more pragmatic, fact-based, reasoned place, what do you suggest? The 21st century is decidedly not the 20th, even if it may face similar dangers, or worse. Trump is the imaginary Maginot Line against the dangers of the world. We all know how fighting and working on yesterday's assumptions can lead to catastrophic failure.

The game is geopolitics, power the currency. This currency is backed by cash and influence, only partially by muscle. Cash accrues best to those with large internal markets from which to gain the production volume and economies of scale in innovation and research to outcompete others. This is what the USA did in the second half of the 20th century. This is the 21st century, the largest market is no longer the USA, that old motor will no longer win all the races, even not for lack of trying. That new world is a result not just of trade agreements good or poor, but from contemporary market structure.

Now, USA, plan your future. My guess is that you could use friends of similar mind, exactly those you plan to push furthest away right now, exactly those who are in shock.
Again, you don't seem to be picking up what I'm laying down. I believe you have read my post with a completely different inference than what I intended. I'm just not sure where the disconnect is.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:50 PM   #288
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You haven't a clue, the jobs they have will always be around, the trick is getting their wages up.
No, they are not logger. The coal mining industry jobs are mostly gone. Both from demand as its growing uncompetitive with photovoltaic and a glut of natural gas. Manufacturing in the US is more than double what it was in the 70s yet there are 7 million fewer manufacturing jobs. Automation is destroying those jobs at a feverish pace. Even in China.

To me the big challenge facing the world is how to deal with with the loss of markets caused by the loss of income caused by the loss of jobs through automation.

My guess is you're or were a logger. I've seen forestry practices in my state of Washington and Oregon and most of those jobs have been destroyed through automation. Instead of dozens of hard men doing the dangerous job of cutting and bucking trees, one guy operates an excavator like machine that grabs a tree by the base cuts it and removes all the limbs in seconds and then repeats the process.

People need more money but the system mostly rewards investors not workers. The division of income is continually growing and it's reached a point where something has to give. I don't have a clue how to create more jobs and I assure you Trump doesn't either.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:51 PM   #289
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I do think the Electoral College system seems like something of a sham.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, if you have a state like California which has 55 (?) Electoral College votes, and one party wins that state by 1 voter, then that party's candidate gets the whole 55 college votes for that State. This hardly seem very democratic to me.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How would you make it work for 50 states?
I've rolled this around in my mind-brain, and I don't know if there's even an answer possible. There are pros and cons to each.

The electoral college creates situations where the person with the larger percentage of people-votes can still end up losing. But going with only the popular vote ends up with some problems too. In particular, the largest population densities are in very small geographic areas. The items of interest to inner-city people in dense metropolitan areas are not the same issues faced by people in suburban or rural areas. If you go with the popular vote alone, you end up with a very small portion of the actual land being the sole deciders. You disenfranchise the entirety of the center of the country. Alaska and Hawaii have no voice at all. We end up with the US brought to you by LA and NYC. As someone living in Washington, the issues and interests of the average LA dweller aren't the same ones I face.

I don't know how to balance the diversity that exists across the US with the density of a small number of cities.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:51 PM   #290
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,448
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
I haven't made any suggestions, I'm trying to understand how it works.

Why, for example does California have 55 votes, Florida 29 and Nevada only 5? In this determined (ultimately) by population?

In the California election Clinton got 61%, Trump got 33%. Did all 55 EC votes go to Clinton, or were they somehow apportioned? That is what I am asking.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th November 2016 at 04:52 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:55 PM   #291
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Look at the data county by county nationwide. Not one county with a college of any size went red.
Are you by chance defining "of any size" to be the size above which they're all blue?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:55 PM   #292
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
You would think right thinking conservatives would be against the Electoral College. Twice in the past 16 years it has enforced the will of a minority on the country.
I'm not sure that matters. How do you get rid of it?

1. It's part of the Constitution and amending it has become close to an impossibility.
2. The popular vote has issues as well, but it might work today.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:56 PM   #293
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No, they are not logger. The coal mining industry jobs are mostly gone. Both from demand as its growing uncompetitive with photovoltaic and a glut of natural gas. Manufacturing in the US is more than double what it was in the 70s yet there are 7 million fewer manufacturing jobs. Automation is destroying those jobs at a feverish pace. Even in China.

To me the big challenge facing the world is how to deal with with the loss of markets caused by the loss of income caused by the loss of jobs through automation.

My guess is you're or were a logger. I've seen forestry practices in my state of Washington and Oregon and most of those jobs have been destroyed through automation. Instead of dozens of hard men doing the dangerous job of cutting and bucking trees, one guy operates an excavator like machine that grabs a tree by the base cuts it and removes all the limbs in seconds and then repeats the process.

People need more money but the system mostly rewards investors not workers. The division of income is continually growing and it's reached a point where something has to give. I don't have a clue how to create more jobs and I assure you Trump doesn't either.
That's the point. A lot of the manufacturing jobs that Trump wants to "Bring back" don't exist anymore.Automated out.
I think that having a stronger manufacturing base in the US is actually a good idea, but don't expect it to bring back thousands of jobs. Donald is selling them a line.
And, BTW, this is pretty much accepted by economist of all stripes,liberal and conservative.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:57 PM   #294
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,432
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't have a clue how to create more jobs and I assure you Trump doesn't either.
Why, by the FORCE OF HIS MAGNIFICENCE, of course.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 04:57 PM   #295
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not sure that matters. How do you get rid of it?

1. It's part of the Constitution and amending it has become close to an impossibility.
2. The popular vote has issues as well, but it might work today.
Then there is the divide the electorial college members by the percentage of the votes in the state each candidate gets, not winner take all..which a couple of states do and you don't need a constitutional admendment to do it.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:01 PM   #296
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not sure that matters. How do you get rid of it?

1. It's part of the Constitution and amending it has become close to an impossibility.
2. The popular vote has issues as well, but it might work today.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. The last time in 1992. It's difficult but not impossible.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:03 PM   #297
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I haven't made any suggestions, I'm trying to understand how it works.

Why, for example does California have 55 votes, Florida 29 and Nevada only 5? In this determined (ultimately) by population?

In the California election Clinton got 61%, Trump got 33%. Did all 55 EC votes go to Clinton, or were they somehow apportioned? That is what I am asking.
The number of votes is equal to the number of total Congressmen and Senators each state has. Congress or the House of Representatives is based on population. California has 53 Congressional districts or representatives, Florida 27 and Nevada 3. Add two votes for the 2 Senators each State has.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:06 PM   #298
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I haven't made any suggestions, I'm trying to understand how it works.

Why, for example does California have 55 votes, Florida 29 and Nevada only 5? In this determined (ultimately) by population?

In the California election Clinton got 61%, Trump got 33%. Did all 55 EC votes go to Clinton, or were they somehow apportioned? That is what I am asking.
My understanding is that the number of electoral votes is roughly based on population, with a little squish. It's actually the number of congressional seats (2 senate per state + house seats based on population).

Most states use a "winner takes all" approach - whoever wins the popular vote within that state gets all of the electoral votes within that state. It's this mechanism that causes the disconnect between the popular and the electoral votes. For example, it's possible to end up with a less than 1% difference in votes in every single state... but have one person win every single electoral vote.

It also means that if one candidate has a very large majority of the popular vote in a very big state, but loses or is very close in all the others, they can have an overall larger number of popular votes for the nation as a whole and still lose the election. This is more or less what happened yesterday. It's hard to pin it down exactly, but I'd say that California is the biggest driver in the popular vs electoral discrepancy for this election. Clinton won California by a margin of over 2.5 million votes. At the end of the day, however, the popular vote was only about 200 thousand different - that's a whole order of magnitude difference. So at the end of the day, the huge lead that Clinton saw in CA was mitigated by a smaller, but more widespread preference for Trump in most of the rest of the US.


ETA: There are a couple of exception to the winner takes all approach, as was previously pointed out. Maine and Nebraska give one vote for whoever wins the popular vote in each congressional district, and the winner of that tally gets the extra two. That's closer to representing the popular vote overall, but is still a little bit off.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 9th November 2016 at 05:08 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:08 PM   #299
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. The last time in 1992. It's difficult but not impossible.
Maybe it will be amended now that this has happened.

People only think about it every 4 years and it has only mattered once before I think.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:10 PM   #300
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,479
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Look at the data county by county nationwide. Not one county with a college of any size went red.
Where do you get that idea?

Oklahoma, for instance, went red in every county. The state has large state universities.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:11 PM   #301
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:11 PM   #302
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Why, by the FORCE OF HIS MAGNIFICENCE, of course.
This is why I don't believe in God either.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:13 PM   #303
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Maybe it will be amended now that this has happened.

People only think about it every 4 years and it has only mattered once before I think.
There are still some problems with going for a purely popular vote. It's the same argument that comes up with every state having the same number of senators instead of it all being based on population.

The US is big, and is very culturally diverse. The different states have different issues and different interests. Some of those interests are based on geographic features. If a large number of people live in a very densely populated, but overall small geographic area, they can end up having undue sway on the entire process. You end up completely disenfranchising rural and suburban people, as well as people in states with smaller populations. Alaska, for example, would end up with no voice at all.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:16 PM   #304
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
I agree. But it's doubtful we would have one nation today without it. It was the great compromise.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:16 PM   #305
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:20 PM   #306
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Then there is the divide the electorial college members by the percentage of the votes in the state each candidate gets, not winner take all..which a couple of states do and you don't need a constitutional admendment to do it.

Great idea. Let's start with California.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:20 PM   #307
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
Does Alaska not have a state government? That would solve that issue. It's weird to see a system set up to maximize voter disenfranchisement.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:25 PM   #308
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
In my opinion, all of our time would be better spent trying to gain a *genuine* understanding of the situation. Why did Clinton lose? What aspects of her campaign and/or her character left voters dissatisfied? Why did Trump win? What aspects of his campaign and/or character garnered votes? Given some of the stuff he's said... why were those things dismissed by voters? This is what I'd like to understand... and just calling half the country "meshbacks" doesn't get me any closer to that.
It's the voting system that we are cursed with. FPTP voting over time trends toward a 2 party system.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


A 2 party system does not fairly represent the majority of the electorate. Life isn't black and white, and it's very rare for an individual to agree with every policy or proposal of a given political party.

If you only get one vote then it oftentimes is better for your interests to vote tactically. You might vote for the lesser of two evils, you might vote purely based on party lines, you might vote to make sure 'that other candidate' can't win.

Perhaps you agree with slightly more of the policies of candidate X than candidate Y.

A multiple party system would offer voters more choice in who to vote for and would mean the views of the electorate are fairly represented in government. The politicians who get in have to work harder to get laws passed, but that's a good thing.

Sadly if the people in power get elected into office using a FPTP system and then stand to lose a lot of power by changing to a much better voting system. (I prefer STV, other alternatives are available) Then the chances of them changing the voting laws are effectively zero.

I think that the single most corrupt thing about our democracy is the fact that we use FPTP to determine the winners of elections, both here in the UK and in the US. Not only does it limit elections to a binary choice between 2 main parties, but it actively disenfranchises people from voting. If you hate both candidates, and are convinced your single vote won't make a difference then your enthusiasm to engage with the political system and to go and vote at all are much lower, which is a sad state of affairs.


It looks to me that Trump won the election because Hilary is unpopular and didn't motivate enough of her supporters to actually vote, at the same time as Trump connecting with voters who don't normally vote, and who opinion pollsters totally missed.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:26 PM   #309
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There are still some problems with going for a purely popular vote. It's the same argument that comes up with every state having the same number of senators instead of it all being based on population.

The US is big, and is very culturally diverse. The different states have different issues and different interests. Some of those interests are based on geographic features. If a large number of people live in a very densely populated, but overall small geographic area, they can end up having undue sway on the entire process. You end up completely disenfranchising rural and suburban people, as well as people in states with smaller populations. Alaska, for example, would end up with no voice at all.
I know. There is no perfect system. Still, we gave rural states far too much power. Twenty rural states representing about a 40th the population has 40 percent of the voting power in the Senate and the more populous states kow tow to them.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:28 PM   #310
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Does Alaska not have a state government? That would solve that issue. It's weird to see a system set up to maximize voter disenfranchisement.
Sure... but there's a lot of regulations, laws, and policies that are defined at the federal level. There are tones of bills through congress each year that address state and local issues. Subsidies for farmers in middle america, for example.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:29 PM   #311
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,096
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Hilarious!

Carl Icahn just bought a billion shares of something.

Dow up 242.
I believe Carl Icahn bought just over one million shares of Herbalife.

Many believe he is doing so out of a personal war with another activist investor, Bill Ackman.

http://seekingalpha.com/news/3221044...-23_05-percent
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:31 PM   #312
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,404
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
Yet people in Alaska with no understanding of the issues of urban cities wield far too much power over their urban brethren. For example gun violence in the cities. Hell, in Alaska everyone is packing. There is a NEED for firearms. This is not true in Chicago or LA.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:32 PM   #313
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,327
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I know. There is no perfect system. Still, we gave rural states far too much power. Twenty rural states representing about a 40th the population has 40 percent of the voting power in the Senate and the more populous states kow tow to them.
Each state is a semi sovereign equal. Their population is not as relevant.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:33 PM   #314
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,149
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I haven't made any suggestions, I'm trying to understand how it works. Why, for example does California have 55 votes, Florida 29 and Nevada only 5? In this determined (ultimately) by population?...
This is from the U.S. Government's Electoral College website:
Quote:
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census. The allocations are based on the 2010 Census. They are effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections.
California with a population of 37.5 million residents has 55 electoral votes. Florida which has roughly about half the population compared to California (18.9 million) has about half as many electoral votes, 29, and Nevada with just 2.7 million residents has 6.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:34 PM   #315
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.
It works both ways doesn't it? An Alaskan doesn't necessarily understand what is important to a California urbanite, why should his voice carry more weight?

But no, an Alaskan shouldn't have all his policies determine by a Californian, that is what state government is for.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:37 PM   #316
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
Why is that different to what happens now?

Both political parties put a lot of effort into campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia and significantly less into other states. In 2012 those 4 states took over 50% of the 2 main parties campaigning efforts.

It's mathematically possible to win a US presidential election with 22% of the popular vote. Twenty Two percent! That'll never happen in the real world, but 4 times in history the winning candidate has lost the popular vote but won the presidential election. 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016. That's almost 9% of the time an election is held.

Would you enjoy a football game if 9% of the time the losing team were awarded the win? I wouldn't.

How much more important is electing your countries leader than a game of football?
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:39 PM   #317
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,327
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Why is that different to what happens now?

Both political parties put a lot of effort into campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia and significantly less into other states. In 2012 those 4 states took over 50% of the 2 main parties campaigning efforts.

It's mathematically possible to win a US presidential election with 22% of the popular vote. Twenty Two percent! That'll never happen in the real world, but 4 times in history the winning candidate has lost the popular vote but won the presidential election. 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016. That's almost 9% of the time an election is held.

Would you enjoy a football game if 9% of the time the losing team were awarded the win? I wouldn't.

How much more important is electing your countries leader than a game of football?
It is the most important. That is why the role of 50 equal sovereigns must also be a factor.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:41 PM   #318
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yet people in Alaska with no understanding of the issues of urban cities wield far too much power over their urban brethren. For example gun violence in the cities. Hell, in Alaska everyone is packing. There is a NEED for firearms. This is not true in Chicago or LA.
Like I said - no good solution I can come up with. It's equally disproportionate for those Chicago and LA folks to decide that Alaskans can't have guns because of the problems with violence in cities

Neither equal representation nor population representation is a good solution by itself.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:42 PM   #319
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
It works both ways doesn't it? An Alaskan doesn't necessarily understand what is important to a California urbanite, why should his voice carry more weight?

But no, an Alaskan shouldn't have all his policies determine by a Californian, that is what state government is for.
It's why we have both a house and a senate, with representation done in two different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 05:42 PM   #320
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,149
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Each state is a semi sovereign equal. Their population is not as relevant.

From what I have seen discussed by historians and scholars that is a pretty good answer. This was one of the challenges the Founders had. How to ensure that each state in the union would did have -- if not an equal voice -- some equality as member states. Thus you have the U.S. Senate -- the body that must approve actions taken in the House of Representatives (in which each state has members in proportion to their to population) -- where each state has two senators regardless of population. It was about equality within the union of states.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 02:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.