George Bush Part 2

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, I am not feeling defensive, but I am frustrated by the left making stupid excuses like "Bush wans't elected...."

That is/was a childish comment put out by a bunch of frustrated lefties who don't like the Electoral College.

So tough shit to them.

Chris

Kallend said:

Not long ago it was the Right that despised the electoral college, because they claimed it gave too much clout to the big states like California and New York.***



The Electoral College works for the same reason each State is only allowed 2 Senators. I find it laughable that some fail to comprehend this simple concept.

When you say "The Right" to whom are you speaking? Are you saying "everyone" on the right despised the Electoral College, most on the right despised it or a few on the right despised if?

When I say "The Right" in response to Storm1977's characterization "frustrated lefties", you can figure out for yourself what I mean.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

The Electoral College works for the same reason each State is only allowed 2 Senators. I find it laughable that some fail to comprehend this simple concept.

I suspect the overwhelming majority of the population fail to understand the purpose, unless they have read the Federalist papers. What do you understand the purpose to be? And how did you determine that the the EC is actually achieving that purpose?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Well Doc,

The reasons I like the electoral college:
1: The idea that the masses are too stupid to make an educated decision still holds up in my mind. So, allowing the delegates to actually vote differently than the states actual vote I feel is a good idea.

It is always good to be reminded of the contempt in which our betters hold the common folk. Viewed in this light, the EC is clearly an anti-democratic institution.

Quote

3. The point has already been made, but the design of the is country was for a bunch of commonly united but sovereign states. So, it was understood that, through the passage of time these states could have great differences in their own political beliefs and ideas. Since the design of this country was initially intended to have little Federal influence over the states, the EC was inacted to combat large states from effectively causing a major impact on the presidency which intern would affect all of the states to some degree.

So, by having the EC, Major states do not throw off the balance of the system too much. Do they have more influence? Yes, but not as much as they would in a popular vote.

The point has been made, and it is still wrong. The EC system actually gives a disproportionate amount of influence to voters in large states. This can be proved by calculating the probability that an individual citizen's vote will actually change the outcome of the election - quite a tricky calculation.

[mikkey 0]

What I fail to understand is the extreme low voter turn out at elections in the US. I think it is the lowest for any democratic country.
Anyone care to explain? Is the system screwed? Why do people don't care?
I would think that if the majority of people does not think it is worth voting a democracy is in trouble...(?)

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

What I fail to understand is the extreme low voter turn out at elections in the US. I think it is the lowest for any democratic country.
Anyone care to explain? Is the system screwed? Why do people don't care?
I would think that if the majority of people does not think it is worth voting a democracy is in trouble...(?)

I believe that the low turn out is due to a widespread belief that the two parties are indistinguishable when it comes to actually achieving anything. The only party with a truly different agenda (Libertarian) has almost no support, which is a shame.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

p.s I thought this was a better place to rant then to send a letter to the SS explaining to them their lack of common sense.

EGAD dont even think about doing something like that.. you will be investigated as an anti american subversive.

[billvon 3,058]

>The EC system actually gives a disproportionate amount of influence
> to voters in large states.

I disagree. A voter in California effectively has .000 001 5 of an electoral vote; a voter in Delaware effectively has .000 003 of a vote. The Delaware voter has twice the "influence" of a California voter.

Put another way, if you have the political "clout" to sway X number of people (via money, campaign time etc) and all states are a close race, your expected return will be higher in a smaller state, since you need to sway fewer people for a larger return of electoral votes.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

>The EC system actually gives a disproportionate amount of influence
> to voters in large states.

I disagree. A voter in California effectively has .000 001 5 of an electoral vote; a voter in Delaware effectively has .000 003 of a vote. The Delaware voter has twice the "influence" of a California voter.

Put another way, if you have the political "clout" to sway X number of people (via money, campaign time etc) and all states are a close race, your expected return will be higher in a smaller state, since you need to sway fewer people for a larger return of electoral votes.

According to www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/ the probability that a voter casts the deciding vote in an EC type election increases with the size of the state.

And then there's the issue of setting the size of congressional delegations - another can of worms (and one that's not specified in the Constitution).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkydiverRick 0]

True. Bush has a lot of positives, IMO, but he has a lot of negatives too, like lousy speaking abilities and too much testosterone . . .

[billvon 3,058]

>Better than the lack of testosterone in the democatic party.

In a 20 year old guy, too much testosterone gets him beat up on occasion. In a US president, too much testosterone gets 20 yeat old american soldiers killed by the hundreds and thousands. A slight difference there. I'll take a president with most of his brain above his waist any day.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

I'll take a president with most of his brain above his waist any day.

And here I gathered you were a Clinton fan all this time... Enlightening! Sorry for my mistaken assumption.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Taz 0]

Quote

Why do people don't care?

I agree somewhat that many people feel both parties are too similar to bother voting. To put it a different way, apathy is also easy when you live in a place where your vote isn't likely to determine whether you live or die, starve or get fed. Americans for the most part live comfortable lives relative to the rest of the world. Voter turnout is high when people feel connected to or invested in the issues of a given election. In 1994 in South Africa, a lot more people voted than they will in the upcoming elections because the issues have gone from fundamental things like freedom and the right to democracy, to policy level arguments about government spending and foreign policy.

Obviously those things are important too, but they require more self-education to seem urgent. Those who read a variety of sources on policy issues, and therefore care about things like what is happening in Zimbabwe, what percentage of the US budget is going to the war in Iraq, whatever happened to Afghanistan, what the US deficit looks like, and how tax cuts are affecting people in the lowest income bracket, are fewer than you might think.

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[billvon 3,058]

>And here I gathered you were a Clinton fan all this time . . .

Nope. At best he was one of the lesser evils, but I'm far from a fan of his.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Quote

Why do people don't care?

In 1994 in South Africa, a lot more people voted than they will in the upcoming elections because the issues have gone from fundamental things like freedom and the right to democracy, to policy level arguments about government spending and foreign policy.

On top of that, with the ruling party's enormous majority and the fact that we have proportional representation anyway, the outcome of the upcoming election is pretty much a foregone conclusion, unlike in the US where the votes from a few counties could have made all the difference last time round. I predict a very low voter turnout.

[Taz 0]

Quote

I predict a very low voter turnout.

I agree, but still get depressed when people don't exercise their right to vote. In South Africa, unlike the US, there are still people who remember what it took to get proportional representation. Those people are all registered and ready to go to the polls, but the next generation is already too busy with consumerism in the fun new open market to get excited about something as "mundane" as voting.

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[storm1977 0]

Here are some census numbers for the EC.

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p25-1132.pdf
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

Voting population of DE in 1998 = 568,000
Electoral College Votes of DE = 3
EC votes per person = 5.2x10^-6

Voting population of Cali 1998 = 23,665,000
Electoral College Vote of CA = 54
EC votes per person = 2.2x10^-6

AS you can see and Billvon already stated a California persons vote is effectively half as powerful as someone in DE.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read.
I left the links up there so you can calculate the Data yourself.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Here are some census numbers for the EC.

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p25-1132.pdf
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

Voting population of DE in 1998 = 568,000
Electoral College Votes of DE = 3
EC votes per person = 5.2x10^-6

Voting population of Cali 1998 = 23,665,000
Electoral College Vote of CA = 54
EC votes per person = 2.2x10^-6

AS you can see and Billvon already stated a California persons vote is effectively half as powerful as someone in DE.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read.
I left the links up there so you can calculate the Data yourself.

Chris

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "voting power". What difference did any voter in Delaware make to the outcome of any recent presidential election? None, because regardless of which way the state went, it would not have changed anything because their delegation is so small.

What appears obvious is far from obvious. Correct application of probability theory shows very clearly that voters in large states have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of presidential elections even though each voter's say in the composition of the EC is smaller.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,099]

Here are the relative voting powers of voters in the states, with Montana being the reference (1.000). Notice that voters in California have more than 3 times the influence of voters in Delaware.

The assumption that it is just voters per member of the electoral college that provide voters with their voting power (or influence, if you like) is incorrect. Each California voter is certainly represented by a smaller number of electoral college members than a Delaware voter, but that is more than outweighed by the far greater probability that the California delegation decides the outcome of the election than does the Delaware delegation.

State PR State PR
CA 3.344 LA 1.308
NY 2.394 MS 1.302
TX 2.384 SC 1.278
FL 2.108 IA 1.253
PA 2.018 AZ 1.247
IL 1.965 KY 1.243
OH 1.923 OR 1.239
MI 1.775 NM 1.211
NC 1.629 AK 1.205
NJ 1.617 VT 1.192
VA 1.564 RI 1.190
GA 1.529 ID 1.188
IN 1.524 NE 1.186
WA 1.490 AR 1.167
TN 1.489 DC 1.148
WI 1.486 KS 1.137
MA 1.463 UT 1.135
MO 1.453 HI 1.132
MN 1.428 NH 1.132
MD 1.366 ND 1.118
OK 1.346 WV 1.113
AL 1.337 DE 1.095
WY 1.327 NV 1.087
CT 1.317 ME 1.076
CO 1.315 SD 1.071
MT 1.000

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Tonto 1]

150 votes,

61% against, 39% in favour.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[storm1977 0]

I disagree. Iknow what you are saying... I understand that. Yes, California has more EC votes than a smaller state such as DE. So, statisically 54vote would have more influence than 3. Yes it would seem that way.

But, the people in smaller states have higher representation of votes than that of a larger state. Thus bringing the EC power up in small states and down in larger one to try and even the playing field as much as possible.

But winning CA, NY,TX and FL will not win you the election. And, in a close race states like DE can become quite significant. And, on a per EC vote in that regard, the People of DE have more Electoral Influence than an person from CA.

Apples and Oranges I guess... I think we both know the points we are making.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

>Better than the lack of testosterone in the democatic party.

In a 20 year old guy, too much testosterone gets him beat up on occasion. In a US president, too much testosterone gets 20 yeat old american soldiers killed by the hundreds and thousands. A slight difference there. I'll take a president with most of his brain above his waist any day.

Sounds like you are buying into the men are stupid mentality. Testosterone doesn't indicate intelligence or a lack of it. It's refreshing to have a president with a backbone. Appeasement gets us nowhere. The democrats remind me of a bunch of whiney schoolgirls. Oh no he said "bring it on", I hope they don't get made.

never pull low......unless you are

[jfields 0]

Quote

It's refreshing to have a president with a backbone.

Some dinosaurs had backbones, weighed several tons, yet had brains the size of peas.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

It's refreshing to have a president with a backbone.

Some dinosaurs had backbones, weighed several tons, yet had brains the size of peas.

Are you saying that the dinosaurs are extinct because they had testosterone? I doubt that this is true. What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation?

never pull low......unless you are

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

I disagree. Iknow what you are saying... I understand that. Yes, California has more EC votes than a smaller state such as DE. So, statisically 54vote would have more influence than 3. Yes it would seem that way.

But, the people in smaller states have higher representation of votes than that of a larger state. Thus bringing the EC power up in small states and down in larger one to try and even the playing field as much as possible.

But winning CA, NY,TX and FL will not win you the election. And, in a close race states like DE can become quite significant. And, on a per EC vote in that regard, the People of DE have more Electoral Influence than an person from CA.

Apples and Oranges I guess... I think we both know the points we are making.

Chris

Disagree all you want. Your argument would be correct if the EC was elected by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all.


The mathematicians who work this stuff out agree, however, that the power of the big states' block vote more than compensates for the composition of the EC under the current system. Until you can refute their numbers your disagreement is hollow.

One way to change this would be to go to proportional representation in the EC instead of winner take all. That would give the voters in smaller states more voting power.

And since the real reason for the EC was stated by the Founders to be distrust of the masses by the elite, maybe it's time to go to direct election in which each voter has the same influence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Remster 30]

Quote

What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation?

You said:

Quote

Better than the lack of testosterone in the democatic party.

WTF does testoterone has to do with managing a country?

Remster