CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 26, 2019 11:31:02 GMT -5
Its interesting people complain about the EC that Wyoming has more influence than CA on per-EC-vote... yet, I don't hear a peep from states like Rhode Island and Delaware. Why is that? Probably because Wyoming is the most extreme example of EC fuckery with a Wyomian (?) vote being worth 3.7 Californian or Texan votes.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 26, 2019 12:02:57 GMT -5
Its interesting people complain about the EC that Wyoming has more influence than CA on per-EC-vote... yet, I don't hear a peep from states like Rhode Island and Delaware. Why is that? Probably because Wyoming is the most extreme example of EC fuckery with a Wyomian (?) vote being worth 3.7 Californian or Texan votes. My point was that other states like, RI and DE is in the same boat as Wyoming. But hey. Dat them rulz.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 26, 2019 12:07:41 GMT -5
Only Vermont is in a similar boat as Wyoming at 3.4 to 1. RI and DE are around 2 to 1. Still undemocratic, but not as bad as Wyoming at nearly 4 to 1. Which is why people single out Wyoming over RI and DE, or anywhere else for that matter, which was your question.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 26, 2019 13:45:42 GMT -5
www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/This blurb succinctly makes the point I've been trying to make... you can't assume HRC would win under a different methodology: Playing by the RulesIt is important to note that the actual results of a real-world election might be significantly different than how the numbers look applying new methodologies after-the-fact. Campaigns make strategic and tactical decisions based on the rules in place. For example, the Obama campaign expended resources in an ultimately successful bid to win one of Nebraska's electoral votes in 2008. They would not have made the effort except for the allocation method used there. Additionally, voter turnout could shift in response to where battlegrounds might be with new rules.If there's going to be any change, it would be the proportional popular vote system (not the state compacts awarding all EV to national popular vote, which many believe wouldn't survive judicial scrutiny). Although, such a system would make it increasingly difficult for candidates to get to 270 EV (excepting Obama and Regan)... which would involve the House of Representative to select the president. This is because we don't have a technical limit to only two parties. The Electoral College makes it a defacto two party system... but changing the system to state-by-state proportional EV will empower multiple parties that would spread out the EV even more. Therefore, whichever party holds the House during the presidential election years would be paramount. If ya'll are pissed about the EC these days... just wait to you see this!
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 26, 2019 14:32:40 GMT -5
Because changing laws that lead to absurd outcomes when you change something else anyway is imposssible somehow?
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 26, 2019 14:57:55 GMT -5
Because changing laws that lead to absurd outcomes when you change something else anyway is imposssible somehow? What are you referring to exactly?
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 26, 2019 15:59:41 GMT -5
What I mean is that if you're already changing laws by removing or reworking the Electoral College you'd probably also rework the rules to make sure you don't run into the problem of punting the choice of President to the House almost by default.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 26, 2019 16:26:33 GMT -5
What I mean is that if you're already changing laws by removing or reworking the Electoral College you'd probably also rework the rules to make sure you don't run into the problem of punting the choice of President to the House almost by default. I should've clarified. I'm extremely unoptimistic that in this day and age, we can successfully orchestrate 1 of the 2 ways to change the US constitution to change/repeal the Electoral College. However, the US Constitution is silent on how the states can award it's EV. So the states themselves can endeavor ways to award the EV, such as the NPV compact: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_CompactAnd in regards to the NPV compact, while I agnostic to the plan.... I seriously doubt it'd survive judicial scrutiny if challenged in court. There are numerous "pending" lawsuit in the works over this ready to go if the NPC compact reaches the 270 threshold. My comment previously is that the methodology in awarding proportional EV in state-by-state, if chosen to do so, has more merits in mitigating the appearance of massive disenfranchisement (Clinton would've narrowly won on such methodology in 2016). Such a format, would put every state in play...which isn't necessarily a bad thing as in 2016, under such format, Hillary would campaign more in Texas as Trump would campaign more in California. Again, each states can choose to use this methodology and imo, has a stronger arguments to survive any potential judicial scrutiny. However, you'd have to appreciate the downfall of such system as it opens up national parties to more than just Republicans and Democrats. It'd be more common to having a third party (or fourth) getting 15-20% of the EV... which would assign the election to the House to select the president. So, for all ya'll teeth knashing that Republicans are more sucessfull in gerrymandering CDs to make it easier to control the House... not sure if even this methodology is "better" than the current system. This highlights the current advantages of the EC as is today... in that, there's a clear winner and loser under the current EC system.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 27, 2019 6:22:14 GMT -5
Never the Persian people. Always the government that is the adversary. So do you understand that those sanctions aren't hurting the government, they are hurting the people? Those sanctions are destroying the economy, preventing a slow progress toward democratization and better human rights by completely destroying the credibility of progressives and reformers. They are hurting people that aren't “trying to destroy you” (which, arguably, doesn't involve the government) and aren't in any capacities to destroy you (and that definitely includes the government). And these sanctions are pushing the government toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Why not do it if the US shits on the deal You can talk about Iran's terrible human right record all you want. But if your policy actually make it worse not better for the victims of those human right abuse, those abuse don't justify that policy at all. Quite the opposite. IF I'm understanding your question... you just register for it when you move. Oh. Then I'm not sure that the difference between the states are that relevant, if there isn't even a smidgen of a naturalization process. I think it'd create different sorts of problems. Which one? The current system is, what it is. It's not "gerrymandered" to GOP's benefit. Every candidate runs on these rules and realities. Practically, it favors GOP hugely. Maybe that's why you don't want it changed. You can sue me for libel. Your hurdle is much lower in proving that... than it is for Kavanaugh to sue Ford as he's a public figure. Okay, then try putting that out accusing, I don't know, the Gorillaz guys? And then watch as you cannot provide any way you could have obtained that information and get annoyed at by journalists for wasting their time! Elon Musk pulled an accusation out of thin air without substantiation. Ford pulled an accusation out of thin air without any substantiation as well. Elon Musk didn't provide any way how he would have learned about this guy being a pedophile. Which is the barest minimal to take his accusation seriously. Dr Ford did: she knew about it because she was the victim. And it's pretty easy to check that they were indeed in the same town at the age were the assault took place. So… Ford "evidences" amounts to a literal "she said, he said". Just about any other case on the planet would have more substantiation one way or the other. So you are saying stuff at random. Nice!!! Why should you believe him? You quoted him as if it was the ultimate way to convince me, and now you are telling me that I should not believe him? I mean, you quoted him saying that if we kept the current system we would pay 30 to 40 trillion dollars over 10 years. And then you said “It's crazy how with his system we will pay that much, without his system we pay less than that”. It's beyond stupid at that point, just stop. Colleges and Universities are literally DOMINATED by leftist/liberal ideologues. And they will NOT take massive cuts away from their schools. lol lolol lololololo lolo. Going full alt-right conspiracy theorist?
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 27, 2019 11:09:12 GMT -5
No, there IS a left-leaning tendency in academia. This doesn't seem to have lead to the same problem anywhere else though.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 27, 2019 12:10:22 GMT -5
“A left-leaning tendency” and “literally DOMINATED by leftist/liberal ideologues” aren't hardly the same statement. Of course there is a left-leaning tendency in academia, it's people that think for a living, and decided to go to that field over a more financially profitable one!
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 29, 2019 15:46:27 GMT -5
Never the Persian people. Always the government that is the adversary. So do you understand that those sanctions aren't hurting the government, they are hurting the people? Those sanctions are destroying the economy, preventing a slow progress toward democratization and better human rights by completely destroying the credibility of progressives and reformers. They are hurting people that aren't “trying to destroy you” (which, arguably, doesn't involve the government) and aren't in any capacities to destroy you (and that definitely includes the government). And these sanctions are pushing the government toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Why not do it if the US shits on the deal The sanctions are working though. The government actions has be more and more belligerent. Furthermore, you cannot totally disassociate "the people" from their government. I'd rather implement sanctions than go to war. Stop being so dense. We have 50 states that are semi-autonomous each with different perspectives and realities. When you cut out the previous questions, it makes it hard to follow the conversation. So, please clarify. No, it doesn't. Studies has been done on this. At most, it may favor GOP +3 house seats, if at all. But it swings. In 2018, the GOP didn't even see that benefit. As to Presidential elections under the electoral college, the genrrymandered CD has no impact. It's still the same # of electoral votes that is mostly awarding to winning candidate on popular state-by-state votes. I'm not following you here.... Just because Dr Ford "knew" of Kavanaugh doesn't make her accusations any more credible. It's still her word against Kavanaugh. You simply cannot level accusations like this and expect justice to prevail. You need corroboration. YOU. LITERALLY. ASKED. WHO. PRESENTED. THAT. NUMBER. As in, you didn't believe me when I originally reported how much it would cost. ...and *I'm* the one accused of arguing in bad faith? Really? You have no clue what you are talking about. But, hey... if you can convince them in taking a budgetary cut to drive down cost. Have at it my friend.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Jul 29, 2019 15:50:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 29, 2019 17:22:12 GMT -5
The sanctions are working though. You would need to tell me what the aim of the sanction was so we can see if they are working. What's the aim of the sanctions? From what I can tell, it's to make the people suffer because: Furthermore, you cannot totally disassociate "the people" from their government. Ahah what? Literally a fucking bully. You are just a bad person who likes to inflict harm on other people Whembly. I'd rather implement sanctions than go to war. Obvious false dichotomy, Iran wasn't going to war before. Stop being so dense. We have 50 states that are semi-autonomous each with different perspectives and realities. Swiss cantons seem more different to me than US states. No, it doesn't.[…] As to Presidential elections under the electoral college, the genrrymandered CD has no impact. It's still the same # of electoral votes that is mostly awarding to winning candidate on popular state-by-state votes. 2 or 3 republican president elected while losing the popular vote, 0 democrat, and yet you still deny it… Just because Dr Ford "knew" of Kavanaugh doesn't make her accusations any more credible. It does. A LOT too. It makes the difference between “ridiculous” and “worth investigating”. Your accusation is very much into the “ridiculous” corner. YOU. LITERALLY. ASKED. WHO. PRESENTED. THAT. NUMBER. You completely misrepresented what he said. And then you told me I shouldn't trust it anyway because it was said by a politician. You really are all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 29, 2019 17:30:18 GMT -5
The Iranian progressives (you know, the people in favor of more liberty and more human rights!) are discredited, the hardline factions are gaining ground, Iran is capturing British oil tankers, the revolutionary guard is arresting bi-national researchers like Fariba Adelkhah as bargaining chips, the Iranian economy is going very badly, people suffer a lot from things like embargo on medecines. Whembly: yes the sanctions are working, this is exactly what I want! I want to help my fellow conservative the hardline Islamists against those bad progressive that might push for more gay rights and feminism, also I like it when people suffer!
|
|