Re: Trump
« Reply #640 on: February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM »
As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.
Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.

And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.

You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian.

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems? I fail to see how there is any more utility in awarding votes per state, especially in a system that currently fails to address even a single aspect of mathematically fair elections, whether we're talking about states or people.

You also claim it "balances voter turnout", as if that is inherently good, and I have no idea why it should be. Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted? Even if you view the United States more as a collection of sovereign states, state representation is at the Legislative level, in the House and Senate. There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.

You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change. To do so would involve a state choosing to purposefully decrease its influence in presidential elections.

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.

As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level. A person "too poor to vote" still has no influence on the outcome of their state's election, and as such, has no voice in the electoral college either. You are confusing phantom voices of non-voters with artificially inflating the value of those that do vote.

  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.
  • The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 02:45:20 AM by trekky0623 »

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #641 on: February 12, 2017, 02:59:25 AM »
And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.
Which I already said I'd be in favour of fixing. Y'know, before you pointed it out.

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems?
I can only refer you to my previous post.

Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted?
Because the alternative is to penalise people for circumstances outside of their own control.

There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.
I admit that the system wouldn't work very well if only one Alabaman voted. However, I don't think you have much reason to worry about such a scenario any more than you have to worry about 1 American deciding the entire election in a "popular vote" scenario. It's a nice thought experiment, but one that will never be reflected in reality.

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change.
Correct, but, once again, irrelevant to anything I said.

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.
Again, your main sources of outrage are the very problems I've already highlighted.

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level.
Which is much more likely to be representative of that locality's non-voters.

  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
This statement is false.

  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.
This statement is correct, and that's a good thing.

  • The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.
This statement is correct, but nobody has made the claim that you're expressing frustration with.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 03:03:35 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #642 on: February 12, 2017, 03:41:38 AM »
In other news, this is happening right now:



Looks like they're about to threaten North Korea in response to their missile test

edit: Welp, that was disappointing. They hardly said anything and then they fucked off.
edit2: A better version of the recording is now available:

« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 10:06:52 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Trump
« Reply #643 on: February 12, 2017, 04:40:10 PM »
[...] i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.
While I don't disagree, I do not see how that affects the discussion at hand.

i'm not well-read on how the founders viewed the ec, but i've always seen its justification along these lines:

let's pretend that there are 1,000 citizens in california and only three citizens in each of the other 49 states.  california thinks the popular vote is perfectly fair, but the other states disagree.  their territories are part of the union, too, and their interests are as much dictated by their geography as that of californians.  why should the citizens of florida get no say in the executive and be ruled by california and california's interests?  thus, there should be a weight that accounts for the distribution of citizens in space to ensure that the election represents territory and population.

i think this makes a good deal of sense to the extent that state boundaries encapsulate unique interests/culture/politics; but, i don't think state boundaries do that well, if at all.  put another way, i think the commonalities in interests/culture/politics between states vastly outweighs the differences.

so i guess ultimately i have two thoughts: 1) i disagree with your original assessment that the ec is a better representation of the general populace.  i think the converse is true and its purpose is to adjust away from perfect representation of population by weighting votes along spacial lines.  2) personally i think it's a bad idea to start throwing weights around data sets without being able to precisely quantify their origins and effects.  even if each state is a truly random sample of a culturally unique region, applying weights can have the effect of merely magnifying variance between samples.  we certainly don't want to be ruled by variance.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Trump
« Reply #644 on: February 12, 2017, 10:06:56 PM »
  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
This statement is false.

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system? And what metric are we using to measure this, since we have seemingly discounted one where if more than 50% of people want a certain person to be president, then that is the person most representative of the population.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #645 on: February 12, 2017, 11:48:08 PM »
is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?
I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Trump
« Reply #646 on: February 13, 2017, 12:58:20 AM »
is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?
I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.

Again, I'm asking how you're measuring how much the electoral college represents Americans, since you said my claim that it failed at that by not guaranteeing a winner for the candidate with >50% American support was false. Obviously if you're saying that that's wrong, even though it fails every fairness criterion, you have some other sort of measure.  I'm not sure how you can claim it's better than a popular vote without this. I've heard the argument about states, but it sounds like you're just guessing it's better. I'm asking if you have any source for those claims.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 03:27:31 AM by trekky0623 »

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #647 on: February 13, 2017, 12:01:19 PM »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5670
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #648 on: February 13, 2017, 12:13:10 PM »
Oh look, more fallout from the ban.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-moves-spark-iraqi-anger-calls-against-future-071015858.html

It's ok.  Trump says "America First" so obviously Iraq would be way down the list, especially since we didn't take their oil like he thinks we should have.  And really, does America really need anyone's help taking down ISIL/ISIS?

Re: Trump
« Reply #649 on: February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6500
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #650 on: February 13, 2017, 04:36:48 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Re: Trump
« Reply #651 on: February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5670
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #652 on: February 13, 2017, 04:50:35 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #653 on: February 13, 2017, 05:27:40 PM »
A Trump supporter mocking "feeling-based voting" is rich. As if Trump was elected on the basis of cold, hard logic and empirical reasoning. We have plenty of evidence pointing to Trump being an enormous liar who'll fudge anything from the trivial to the serious - but gosh, he sure feels like he's a bluff, honest straight-shooter who tells it like it is! And Trump's repeated refusal to release his tax records and divest from his holdings (not to mention his recent shilling for his daughter) clearly indicate the potential for major corruption - but gosh, Trump is far too rich to be corrupted by the lure of illicit money-making! And basic common sense, along with much of human history, tells us that making a temperamental, thin-skinned, immature, ignorant, vulgar, unpleasant, and grossly unqualified asshole with a million skeletons in his closet the most powerful person on the planet is a catastrophically bad idea, but gosh, my gut is telling me that this would be a nice breath of fresh air for our country!
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #654 on: February 13, 2017, 05:42:46 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
Well, no matter what attributes you put on people's votes, you just described democracy.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Trump
« Reply #655 on: February 13, 2017, 05:45:00 PM »
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?

Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.

When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Re: Trump
« Reply #656 on: February 13, 2017, 05:54:51 PM »
Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

Much better to let the minority dictate to everyone else, right? I mean because that's how it works now. You're concerned about cities controlling the election (even though they don't have enough population to do so), and rather than try and get a consensus from more than just the cities, the electoral college currently just says "we'll just value the cities less", allowing a minority of people to decide what happens to the country.

If this was truly a concern, we'd want to have an election that requires a supermajority. That'd fix the problem you're espousing by making a simple majority not enough. But the electoral college is not the solution.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5670
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #657 on: February 13, 2017, 06:27:24 PM »
Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.
Oh I'm aware.  American culture is chock full of selfish, short sighted jackasses who take what they want.  It might as well be the American Motto: All for Me.

Quote
When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Last year/this year.
Well... that's not true.  They have a surplus.
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
2012-2013
2011-2012


They had a deficit in 2010-2011 by $1.2 Bilion. (of $90 Billion)


Sssooo.... What's your point again?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5670
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #658 on: February 13, 2017, 06:42:25 PM »
Also..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.1c29058c9e7c

Trump golfs on weekends, has meetings in insecure clubs full of people who pay lots of money to go, and could literally be killed by a boat and a sniper since the totally unprotected and open air terrace was overlooking the waterway.

Oh and anyone with a listening device could overhear every single word he said.

Yeah...
He's not gonna last to December.

Re: Trump
« Reply #659 on: February 13, 2017, 07:10:34 PM »
So you think.

So god damn funny seeing people so irrationally angry and butthurt that they are literally begging for a Presidential assassination. What's scary though, is that the "left" is so fucking delusional and brainwashed it might actually happen. Strange how no radical White supremacy group took out Obama, even though they are constantly portrayed as the most violent and heavily armed group in America.

I am so glad you have no say what happens over here.