It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:21 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3166 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1123 124 125 126 127 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
Slacks wrote:
Slacks wrote:
She was still a more popular choice for President than Trump though.


Oh shut it Remainer. You lost, just like Hillary lost and that's all that matters.

U=B}

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
SomeGuy wrote:
Slacks wrote:
Slacks wrote:
She was still a more popular choice for President than Trump though.


Oh shut it Remainer. You lost, just like Hillary lost and that's all that matters.

U=B}


Brexitwon more votes. It was more popular. Therefore it won.

Hillary won more votes. She was more popular. But she lost.

She was still a more popular choice for President than Trump though.

Fact U=B}

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 15993
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Did more Americans vote for Hillary Clinton in the (whole) 2016 Election than for Donald Trump?


In the whole yes, but context is important.


Always.

And in this instance, the context is a *NATIONAL* Election.

Therefore breaking voting patterns down into regions, is rather a pointless exercise isn’t it?

Hillary Clinton convinced 3 million more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump managed.

That’s just a fact.

SomeGuy wrote:
Otherwise you're assuming uniform distribution of votes when and where there is none.


I’m talking about who won more votes overall in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election – a nationwide vote.

Why would I even care about voting distribution, much less make any assumption about it?

Clinton got 3 million more votes in a Nationwide election than Donald Trump.

What relevance would the distribution of votes have to that fact?

SomeGuy wrote:
The Brexit vote didn't go 50-50 in Gibraltar, they were all but unanimous in saying Remain.


Funny, isn’t it?

Gibraltar is a relic of Britain’s Imperial Past (guess your equivalent would be Puerto Rico…).

Most Mainland Brits don’t consider Gibraltar any more a part of the United Kingdom than they do the Falkland Islands.

But the crucial fact is that Gibraltarians *DO* see themselves as part of the UK. A comfortable majority of Gibraltarians want to remain being governed by the UK. Gibraltar does not want to secede from the UK and join with Spain.

Gibraltarians are absolutely determined to remain subjects of the British Government in Westminster.

So who gives a fuck which way they voted on Brexit?

If they want to remain part of the UK, they’ll have to do as they are told, won’t they.

SomeGuy wrote:
Instead it was other areas, large swathes of territory coming together to counteract the tiny specks of land called cities thinking they could dictate. Likewise large swathes of territory came together to counteract Hillary at the Electoral level by circumventing the large coastal cities. It wasn't a 50-50 + 1 vote in Ohio, it solidly went for Trump and that isn't counteracted by running a 65% win margin in California. Same with Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin, all three of those are not overturned by a 65% win margin in California. But at the Electoral level, win those four states and you have more Electoral votes than whatever score you ran up in California even if the number of votes in California outnumbered all 4 combined. A wide swath of territory coming together to counteract the cities, just like Brexit.


Yes, I see.

So are you suggesting that future elections should be decided by Geography, rather than a per-capita headcount?

That is: that the combined geographic land area occupied by voters for one candidate or the other should determine victory?

Worth a shot, I suppose.

SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Did more Americans *WANT* to vote for Hillary than wanted to vote for Trump?


...more Americans didn't *WANT* to vote for Hillary after all, perhaps it was more voting against Trump.


They *WANTED* to vote for Clinton to try and ensure that Trump didn’t win the Presidency you mean..?

I wonder if anyone voted for Trump because they wanted to try and ensure that Clinton didn’t win the Presidency?

:-?

_________________
Image

"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:29 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
Holyman wrote:
Always.

And in this instance, the context is a *NATIONAL* Election.


One composed of numerous regions of differing opinions and populations.

Holyman wrote:
Therefore breaking voting patterns down into regions, is rather a pointless exercise isn’t it?


Incorrect. It shows why Hillary lost, why Trump won and beyond.

Break the voting results down region by region, state by state, county by county, town by town and you start seeing things happen. For example, towns and counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, voting for Trump in 2016. Enough of those flipped around that whole states flipped results from what happened to Obama vs what happened to Hillary despite national popular vote results.

And mind you, that kind of thing is by design here. Working as intended. More on that later.

Holyman wrote:
Hillary Clinton convinced 3 million more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump managed.

That’s just a fact.


And was down across the board until the West Coast results came in. So the majority of that 3 million gap, came from liberal strongholds as opposed to anywhere else.

Holyman wrote:
I’m talking about who won more votes overall in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election – a nationwide vote.


A vote tally that mind you is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Usually the Electoral vote reflects the popular to a degree, but not always. Our earliest "disjointed" election like this where the Electoral vote didn't match the popular vote was in 1824.

And yet even that was by design.

Holyman wrote:
Why would I even care about voting distribution, much less make any assumption about it?


Because a nationwide tally is irrelevant, the results on a state by state basis determine the winner. Win enough states, win the election, even if the popular tally is the other way.

Holyman wrote:
Clinton got 3 million more votes in a Nationwide election than Donald Trump.

What relevance would the distribution of votes have to that fact?


The distribution of votes ensured that the Electoral votes of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and more swung one way (Trump) while a lesser number swung the other (Hillary).

Again, running up the score in raw votes in California doesn't overturn the will of voters in Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Holyman wrote:
Funny, isn’t it?

Gibraltar is a relic of Britain’s Imperial Past (guess your equivalent would be Puerto Rico…).

Most Mainland Brits don’t consider Gibraltar any more a part of the United Kingdom than they do the Falkland Islands.

But the crucial fact is that Gibraltarians *DO* see themselves as part of the UK. A comfortable majority of Gibraltarians want to remain being governed by the UK. Gibraltar does not want to secede from the UK and join with Spain.

Gibraltarians are absolutely determined to remain subjects of the British Government in Westminster.

So who gives a fuck which way they voted on Brexit?


Because if they banded together with enough places, they could have been the deciding handful of votes on whether or not the Leave campaign succeeded.

Holyman wrote:
If they want to remain part of the UK, they’ll have to do as they are told, won’t they.


And here we go, tyranny of the majority.


Holyman wrote:

Yes, I see.

So are you suggesting that future elections should be decided by Geography, rather than a per-capita headcount?

That is: that the combined geographic land area occupied by voters for one candidate or the other should determine victory?

Worth a shot, I suppose.


Which is somewhat how we do things for Presidential elections here, and how composition of the Congress works.

Ya see as I mentioned earlier, this is all by design. The Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago weren't idiots. They knew full well "mob rule" (aka Athenian) democracy where 50% +1 vote meant total control was a majorly flawed and impractical concept. All you need then is one more than the other side and they become your slaves, after all if you accomplish that you are the Majority, they the Minority and in that kind of Democracy, what the Majority says goes, what the Minority says is irrelevant and subservient to the wishes and whims of the Majority.

Tyranny of the Majority, that's what it's called.

We went through this question and scenario right off the start in 1787 when drafting the Constitution of the United States.

Large state delegates coming to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had everything to gain and mold to their designs, the smaller states stood to lose out and be marginalized. The original proposal for voting systems and the Congress was to be population (and land size) proportionate. That each state would be given Representatives in Congress as proportion of the country's total population (and land size). This meant at the time states with large land areas and populations like New York, Virginia and Pennsylanvia which would originally be growing into what is now the Ohio Valley would accrue immense and in many ways uncontestable power relative to smaller land area and population states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts. An alternate proposal for Congress was submitted mainly by the smaller states in that all states would carry equal weight of power, regardless of land size or population.

As you might imagine, neither proposal went through on the first pass. Small states basically asked "What's the point of us being here?" if Representation by Population was the sole winner while large states balked at the thought of equal power with tiny states.

But the Constitution, like the United States itself was an all-or-nothing affair. They could either come together in some way or fall apart into tiny nation-states on their own, ripe for conquest at the hands of a cheesed off Britain or expansive France or whatever. It would be either one nation with 13 states or 13 independent nations, none of which would last very long.

And they all knew that back then. The prospect of complete disintegration led to compromise. A compromise that created the Representation by Population House of Representatives in Congress, Equal Power Among States Senate, and a combination Electoral College* for electing the President/Vice-President.

* Each Electoral vote is weighted the same and states are to apportion them in accordance with the victor of their state's election counts. This gives more equal representation among states so that nobody is left truly powerless in determining the highest office in the land and the Electoral Votes themselves are apportioned by population of each state, meaning the more people you have relative to the rest the more Electoral votes you shall have.

Any change to our system would simply tilt the scale one way or the other. Towards equal representation or representation by population.

Those folks back then, the Founding Fathers, they weren't idiots, they make today's politicians look quite the fool.

Holyman wrote:
They *WANTED* to vote for Clinton to try and ensure that Trump didn’t win the Presidency you mean..?

I wonder if anyone voted for Trump because they wanted to try and ensure that Clinton didn’t win the Presidency?

:-?


Ever heard the phrase "I'm not voting for [X]! I'm voting against [Y]!"? That's a huge part of Hillary's support right there. "I'm not voting for Hillary, I'm voting against Trump!" Likewise, a not-insignificant part of Trump's support (and victory) came from that. "I don't like Trump, I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting against Hillary!"

(Incidentally, my vote for Trump was partially like that. Trump is a means to an end for me, I'm not some Trump-supporter. Hillary was the less acceptable outcome.)

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
SomeGuy exercising some serious mental gymnastics here.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
Quote:
CRAMENTO, California (The Borowitz Report)—Californians were baffled on Monday by a series of tweets by Donald J. Trump in which he utterly failed to blame the state’s current wildfires on Hillary Clinton.

In interviews with residents up and down the Golden State, Californians agreed with the assessment of Harland Dorrinson, a Modesto native, that Trump’s failure to pin the fires on Clinton was “nothing short of bizarre.”

“When he said that there wasn’t enough water to put out the fires, I naturally assumed he was going to accuse Hillary Clinton of sneaking into California and somehow stealing all of our water,” Dorrinson said. “It was so confusing when he didn’t.”

“I thought that the wildfires would be a perfect opportunity for Trump to accuse Hillary of being anti-water and pro-fire, but he didn’t even mention her,” Tracy Klugian, who lives in San Jose, said. “Maybe he’s really distracted by all this Russia stuff and he’s off his game.”

Carol Foyler, who lives in Monterey, said that Trump’s failure to accuse Hillary Clinton of single-handedly causing the wildfires left her shaken and appalled.

“At a time when many of us in California are suffering from historic wildfires, we look to the President of the United States to blame them on Hillary Clinton,” she said. “And he let us down.”


https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... on-hillary

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
Slacks wrote:
SomeGuy exercising some serious mental gymnastics here.


And?

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:04 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 15993
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Slacks wrote:
SomeGuy exercising some serious mental gymnastics here.


And?


Well, just be careful you don't sprain anything.

[-X

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:27 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class
Sergeant First-Class
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 3227
But SG, it's not REALLY a democracy in the USA, more people voted for Hilary yet she lost, talk about any liberal stronghold you like BUT the majority of USA citizens voted for Hilary .

I voted for remain in Brexit but we lost, so fair enough I may dislike it, but that was the Democratic decision, so if I truly believe in democracy I have to accept it. Can you?

_________________
"I get irreversible brain herpes from Fuckwits"

"you stupid illiterate fucking bastard fuck. Maybe you should grab a dictionary instead, you fucking twat wanker. Oh, and fuck you and your stupid fucking boat. Fucking fuck.
Now fuck off out of this thread, you buttfucking fucking asshole." Slacks


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16262
I don't believe in mob rule democracy.

I am very happy to keep our Constitutional Republic.......thank you very much. While the rest of the world's primates have destroyed themselves several times over with monarchies, theocracies, fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists and various totalitarian regimes - America's Constitutional Republic has stood the test of time and outlasted all others.

A country as big and diverse as America can't let millions of California or New York liberal retards speak for everyone with their outsized populations.

I believe Trump would have won the popular vote by millions of votes and even larger electoral college margin if California wasn't included. Ask the average American if they like "California or New York Values" with their sanctuary cities, high taxes, high poverty and high crime - and most would say hell no!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:21 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
Foota wrote:
I don't believe in mob rule democracy.

I am very happy to keep our Constitutional Republic.......thank you very much. While the rest of the world's primates have destroyed themselves several times over with monarchies, theocracies, fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists and various totalitarian regimes - America's Constitutional Republic has stood the test of time and outlasted all others.


You got all that because the electoral college overruled the popular vote 4 times since Murrica was born?

:-?

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:25 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 22495
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
I don't believe in mob rule democracy.

I am very happy to keep our Constitutional Republic.......thank you very much. While the rest of the world's primates have destroyed themselves several times over with monarchies, theocracies, fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists and various totalitarian regimes - America's Constitutional Republic has stood the test of time and outlasted all others.


You got all that because the electoral college overruled the popular vote 4 times since Murrica was born?

:-?



Foota is getting desperate.

I've noticed his posts are getting slightly more nuts than normal.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:40 pm 
Offline
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 10287
Location: So Cal, USA
Quote:
I believe Trump would have won the popular vote by millions of votes and even larger electoral college margin if California wasn't included.


Foota, holy shit man. ... ||/()

_________________
Image
"The Inner Machinations of my mind are an enigma" - P. Star


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:48 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
Graphic-J wrote:
Quote:
I believe Trump would have won the popular vote by millions of votes and even larger electoral college margin if California wasn't included.


Foota, holy shit man. ... ||/()


Love it :))

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16262
Graphic-J wrote:
Quote:
I believe Trump would have won the popular vote by millions of votes and even larger electoral college margin if California wasn't included.


Foota, holy shit man. ... ||/()


Is that really in dispute? There were over 8 million votes for Hillary in California compared to Trump's 4 million. Take out California's 55 Electoral College votes and America would never elect a Democrat Liberal again.

The total National vote was:

- Trump - 61,201,031
- Hillary - 62,523,126
https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2 ... president/

Yeah Hilary got about half a percent more on the popular vote than Trump, but the rules for the last 242 years are the Electoral College. This is by design to force the President to appeal and represent a broad swath of the population and not just a few super crowded coastal cities and states.

Civics 101 stuff.

Simple fact is that Trump crushed Hillary in the Electoral College (306 to 232). I was surprised as everyone else was.

But complaining that Hillary got half a percent more of the popular vote is like saying a football team should have won the game because they got more rushing yards despite losing on points.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:51 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
In short, if you exclude the votes from people you disagree with, you end up winning!

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 15676
Location: teh internet
Slacks wrote:
In short, if you exclude the votes from people you disagree with, you end up winning!


It's those pesky educated and brown people screwing things up again. Some 'democracy'!


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:44 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 17823
Slacks wrote:
In short, if you exclude the votes from people you disagree with, you end up winning!


Reminds me of Ron Atkinson and other old skool football pundits

"If Chelsea can just score a few more goals each game, I can really see them improving their league position..." And such


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:08 am 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 8068
She lost an election rigged for her in every possible way
I'm still laughing

_________________
Love him or hate him, Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.

- Donald Trump


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:54 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 22495
Htown0666 wrote:
She lost an election rigged for her in every possible way
I'm still laughing




The rest of the planet is laughing moar...

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:34 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
Junior-IRL wrote:
But SG, it's not REALLY a democracy in the USA


Not in the Athenian sense, the "mob rule" of majority rule where you need 50% of available votes plus 1 more than any opposition.

Instead we're a Republic. A similar but also relevant term is "representative democracy". Unlike Athenian democracy where all you need for anything is 50% + 1 (or at least + 1 more than the next largest opposition group), the US utilizes a republican form of governance and elections.

People have the right to vote and their choice is honored, but the results are done via intermediary. Representatives and Senators in the Congress, Electors sent to the Electoral College to elect the President. Each Elector is done district by district, as opposed to proportionately distributed amongst national results. This contrasts to many modern Parliamentary systems.

In short, each Elector represents a piece of the whole as opposed to allocated to the collective.

How is this so difficult for people to understand? What part do y'all not get?

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:06 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 22495
SomeGuy wrote:
Junior-IRL wrote:
But SG, it's not REALLY a democracy in the USA


Not in the Athenian sense, the "mob rule" of majority rule where you need 50% of available votes plus 1 more than any opposition.

Instead we're a Republic. A similar but also relevant term is "representative democracy". Unlike Athenian democracy where all you need for anything is 50% + 1 (or at least + 1 more than the next largest opposition group), the US utilizes a republican form of governance and elections.

People have the right to vote and their choice is honored, but the results are done via intermediary. Representatives and Senators in the Congress, Electors sent to the Electoral College to elect the President. Each Elector is done district by district, as opposed to proportionately distributed amongst national results. This contrasts to many modern Parliamentary systems.

In short, each Elector represents a piece of the whole as opposed to allocated to the collective.

How is this so difficult for people to understand? What part do y'all not get?


So if the Brexit vote had happened in Murricu then the remainer vote would have won?

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
barcelona wrote:
So if the Brexit vote had happened in Murricu then the remainer vote would have won?


If it were held by Electoral College standards, that depends purely on the distribution of votes. If Remain were concentrated solely on Edinburgh, London, and Gibraltar with most areas outside the big cities choosing Leave, then Leave would still have won.

Mind you, I saw the geographic distribution live on the BBC two years ago, even by Electoral College standards, Remain was outnumbered.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:34 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30553
Also depends how each 'state' allocates it's votes. I think only 2 in the USA distribute proportional to the vote with the others winner takes all.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:16 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19248
Slacks wrote:
Also depends how each 'state' allocates it's votes. I think only 2 in the USA distribute proportional to the vote with the others winner takes all.


I know for certain Maine (5 Electoral votes) allocates proportionately. There's been talk before of California doing the same but that quietly (and for obvious reasons) fell off.

Proportionate allocation carries its own set of problems. For example, Maine's proportionate system effectively did an own goal, they're completely marginalized as a desirable state in terms of Electoral College. The same would happen to any state with Electoral counts less than 10. (Meaning for example, Colorado would be completely marginalized since we only have 9.) Given that there are very few states with Electoral counts more than 10 compared to the rest, that's an awful lot of territory that goes ignored.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3166 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1123 124 125 126 127 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited