Road rules0 min ago
End The Whing-O-Rama, Good Advice From Bojo?
115 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ought there not be a presumption that a country's leaders have a primary duty to protect it from harm?
I offer you the Clinton Foundation's selling favours to America's enemies (Qatar, Saudi).
I offer you Obama's enabling of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. A policy sppobynton, who once was for sanctions against Ahmajinebad, but now with her successor Kerry with the "moderates2 in power
Who's the more dangerous: Trump with the nuclear codesor Komenei's puppet Rouhani with nukes?
I offer you the Clinton Foundation's selling favours to America's enemies (Qatar, Saudi).
I offer you Obama's enabling of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. A policy sppobynton, who once was for sanctions against Ahmajinebad, but now with her successor Kerry with the "moderates2 in power
Who's the more dangerous: Trump with the nuclear codesor Komenei's puppet Rouhani with nukes?
Jim, I don’t think what happens in the US is irrelevant to us either, but your attitude is inconsistent. You say that the result of the US election is unfair because it doesn’t represent the will of the majority, but that the result of the EU referendum is unfair because the will of the people is not the criteria upon which it should be judged. On the subject of the US electoral system, birdie1971’s post at 00:52 Sat on another thread makes interesting reading.
http://
http://
Interesting, sure -- but I disagree. For example, birdie says that the electoral college guarantees that the President "appeal to a wide ranging and geographically diverse range of voters" -- but this is not true, and in theory it's enough to win 11 states. Also, when he says that "there is cross party agreement" -- well, this may not last anyway, but Republicans and Democrats in both cases are bound to support a system that helps them even if it hinders the people.
Finally, when birdie says that the Electoral college "would have been changed decades ago" if it were unfair ignores the reality of politics, in particular in the US, that is heavily geared towards inertia. In order for the Electoral College to be "changed" (read: got rid of), it must have support from the President (who was put there as a result of benefitting from it), from senate and the House of Representatives, as well as two-thirds of the states. But well over one third of states effectively do receive an (often signficiant) enhancement to their voice as the result of the electoral college. The discrepancy can be as much as citizens in one state (Wyoming) being given as much as four times the vote of citizens in, say, Texas or California.
So it simply isn't going to be overturned any time soon, no matter how bad a system it is -- and it is a very bad one. As I have pointed out before, it's possible to become President, exploiting the electoral college, even if you get almost four times fewer votes than your opponent, or just a shade under 22% of the popular vote. This is not how a democracy should work. And, as a final point, it ends up giving 538 people the freedom to overturn a result they don't like whenever they choose. That they have not so far is as much down to luck as anything.
Birdie is wrong, and the EC system is broken. Yes, there are arguments for it -- but many of them fail to stand up to scrutiny. In practice, though, the electoral college is likely to stay for some time, to the detriment of all in the US.
Finally, when birdie says that the Electoral college "would have been changed decades ago" if it were unfair ignores the reality of politics, in particular in the US, that is heavily geared towards inertia. In order for the Electoral College to be "changed" (read: got rid of), it must have support from the President (who was put there as a result of benefitting from it), from senate and the House of Representatives, as well as two-thirds of the states. But well over one third of states effectively do receive an (often signficiant) enhancement to their voice as the result of the electoral college. The discrepancy can be as much as citizens in one state (Wyoming) being given as much as four times the vote of citizens in, say, Texas or California.
So it simply isn't going to be overturned any time soon, no matter how bad a system it is -- and it is a very bad one. As I have pointed out before, it's possible to become President, exploiting the electoral college, even if you get almost four times fewer votes than your opponent, or just a shade under 22% of the popular vote. This is not how a democracy should work. And, as a final point, it ends up giving 538 people the freedom to overturn a result they don't like whenever they choose. That they have not so far is as much down to luck as anything.
Birdie is wrong, and the EC system is broken. Yes, there are arguments for it -- but many of them fail to stand up to scrutiny. In practice, though, the electoral college is likely to stay for some time, to the detriment of all in the US.
I'll explain how it's worked out: divide the population of the state by the number of college votes it receives. The factor of difference is then equal to the effective enhancement in the power of a vote.
So: the population of Wyoming is 586,000, and they get 3 EC votes, so that each member of the Electoral college represents 195,000 people.
The population of Texas is 27.5 million, and they get 38 College votes, so that each member of the EC represents 724,000 people.
And 724,000/195,000 = 3.7, ie almost four,
So: the population of Wyoming is 586,000, and they get 3 EC votes, so that each member of the Electoral college represents 195,000 people.
The population of Texas is 27.5 million, and they get 38 College votes, so that each member of the EC represents 724,000 people.
And 724,000/195,000 = 3.7, ie almost four,
If you want exact figures to placate any criticisms, then Trump gained 3 EC votes from winning 130,000 votes in Alaska, whereas Clinton received 3 EC votes in Maine having won 350,000 votes -- again, there's almost a factor 3 difference between these two figures. It's possible to find plenty such extreme examples.
If in our UK General elections, we had situations where any given constituency has a much smaller voting population than the average, you'd complain that the system was horribly unfair, particularly if that conferred any particular advantage to one party. Of course, this actually *does* happen in the UK, which is why for example we are about to see a large number of boundary changes, attempting to rebalance the MP/ constituent ratio.
The US system will need some major (and, as I have said, highly unlikely sadly) revision in order to achieve the same correction to voter imbalance. It's folly to pretend such imbalances don't exist -- whether they are factors of 2, 3, or 4, they are unacceptably high.
If in our UK General elections, we had situations where any given constituency has a much smaller voting population than the average, you'd complain that the system was horribly unfair, particularly if that conferred any particular advantage to one party. Of course, this actually *does* happen in the UK, which is why for example we are about to see a large number of boundary changes, attempting to rebalance the MP/ constituent ratio.
The US system will need some major (and, as I have said, highly unlikely sadly) revision in order to achieve the same correction to voter imbalance. It's folly to pretend such imbalances don't exist -- whether they are factors of 2, 3, or 4, they are unacceptably high.
Actually it's very scientific. I took a couple of figures and came up with an estimate. I then adjusted that estimate to account for slightly more data.
For most scientific purposes, and when I am working on the back of an envelope basically, 3 and 4 are about the same. The key point is that the voter power ratio is *not* one, which is what it should be.
For most scientific purposes, and when I am working on the back of an envelope basically, 3 and 4 are about the same. The key point is that the voter power ratio is *not* one, which is what it should be.
ZM, I'd love to explain to you, and to everyone else, how science works one time, and how numerical estimates are obtained, improved, corrected and enhanced. But for now let me say that the statement "three is about the same as four" is actually far more robust than you are giving it credit for, *at this level*.
I can, if you wish, go away for a couple of hours, and come back with a full set of ratio between voters of different states, accurate to three decimal places. But I am not going to do that -- and you wouldn't be interested anyway. It doesn't matter. I am providing an initial estimate here, and for my purposes that estimate doesn't have to be accurate to anything like the accuracy you appear to be demanding. It just needs to be in the right ballpark, and 3 and 4 are both in the same ballpark. At this level, that's all that's required.
I can, if you wish, go away for a couple of hours, and come back with a full set of ratio between voters of different states, accurate to three decimal places. But I am not going to do that -- and you wouldn't be interested anyway. It doesn't matter. I am providing an initial estimate here, and for my purposes that estimate doesn't have to be accurate to anything like the accuracy you appear to be demanding. It just needs to be in the right ballpark, and 3 and 4 are both in the same ballpark. At this level, that's all that's required.
Of course I'm aware it's a 25% difference (or 33%). But at this level, when I have done, what, five minutes' of work? -- 25% is huge. It's probably better sometimes than anyone in my field is capable of getting after months of detailed calculation. At any rate it's comparable. If I can land within 25% of the "correct" answer with barely any work at all, I'm incredibly chuffed. And so would any other scientist be.
What this really means is that you don't understand how scientific estimation works, what the word "about", means, and how orders of magnitude are used. To a first approximation, 3 and 4 are the same size, and they are both *not* equal to one. That is the point. To complain that I said "about" four first time (and anyway, with the figures I gave, it was 3.72-ish, and I rounded up), and went for nearer to three with a different set of figures to reflect your suggestion, is to split hairs and to miss the point spectacularly badly.
I'm not interested in what you think of me as a scientist. Your opinion doesn't matter, and as it's wrong anyway. What *is* sad is that you seem to think that my training and experience count for exactly nothing. But that's because you apparently have been badly misinformed about the field, and the standards therein. Obviously, my results above wouldn't make it into a rigorous scientific paper. But I wasn't setting out to write one. I was just trying to make a point that voter power varies quite dramatically between certain states, and gave a rough estimate as to the maximum possible size of this variation. If you are interested, I can go through and provide you with the full table, based on four or five criteria: population of each state, adult population in each state, registered voting population in each state, actual number of voters in each state, and number of voters for the victor in each state. The numbers would no doubt vary, I know not how much by (I'm talking about a day or a couple of days' work to prepare the full table above). But it doesn't affect the argument. Why should you care if one vote in Alaska counts for 2.77 votes in Maine, or 3.12, or 3.4? If the ratio isn't one, shouldn't that be the only thing that matters?
But I bypassed all this, did one calculation, came up with one answer, and stuck with that as a *very* rough guide to the problem. This is how estimation works. The only reason I can see a problem is because it's useful to pick up on a figure I already knew to be wrong (but not wrong by all that much) in order to avoid having to discuss the actual point.
What this really means is that you don't understand how scientific estimation works, what the word "about", means, and how orders of magnitude are used. To a first approximation, 3 and 4 are the same size, and they are both *not* equal to one. That is the point. To complain that I said "about" four first time (and anyway, with the figures I gave, it was 3.72-ish, and I rounded up), and went for nearer to three with a different set of figures to reflect your suggestion, is to split hairs and to miss the point spectacularly badly.
I'm not interested in what you think of me as a scientist. Your opinion doesn't matter, and as it's wrong anyway. What *is* sad is that you seem to think that my training and experience count for exactly nothing. But that's because you apparently have been badly misinformed about the field, and the standards therein. Obviously, my results above wouldn't make it into a rigorous scientific paper. But I wasn't setting out to write one. I was just trying to make a point that voter power varies quite dramatically between certain states, and gave a rough estimate as to the maximum possible size of this variation. If you are interested, I can go through and provide you with the full table, based on four or five criteria: population of each state, adult population in each state, registered voting population in each state, actual number of voters in each state, and number of voters for the victor in each state. The numbers would no doubt vary, I know not how much by (I'm talking about a day or a couple of days' work to prepare the full table above). But it doesn't affect the argument. Why should you care if one vote in Alaska counts for 2.77 votes in Maine, or 3.12, or 3.4? If the ratio isn't one, shouldn't that be the only thing that matters?
But I bypassed all this, did one calculation, came up with one answer, and stuck with that as a *very* rough guide to the problem. This is how estimation works. The only reason I can see a problem is because it's useful to pick up on a figure I already knew to be wrong (but not wrong by all that much) in order to avoid having to discuss the actual point.
If you are worried about 25% errors, though, you would have a fit when I once answered a question about the smallest collection of atoms you could see with the naked eye. Along the way, in working out an answer to that one, I used pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter, and decided that it equalled 4. So that's, what... a 27% error? How dare I!
Jim. Stop bleating on about science. We're talking pure and simple statistics being applied to politics here and in that context 25% is significant. At first you claimed each member of the EC's represented almost 4. Then, when I pointed out your figures were not based on the electoral register, you revised that figure to 3. That's a 25% difference which, when talking about votes, is an awful lot.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.