WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 17:26:30 +0000

Is it the argument that the "cooler" states went for Kerry? _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-04 17:47:56 +0000

If being more educated and informed is "cooler," I suppose so. The red you are seeing is land area, not population.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 18:19:37 +0000

Like that giant red swath in Maine? How many voters is that, seriously, 3?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 18:20:43 +0000

Exactly. Open priarie land in Wymoning evidently goes for Bush. What about the millions of people, the majority of the population, that are in those blue areas? I was on this with P. Chippy last night: Every state gets 3 EC votes no matter what. 3/458 (?) is the fractional power given to each state to elect the president, even if no one lives there. Where is the fairness? Bush won the popular vote, let's get rid of the Electoral College.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 21:09:43 +0000

SOMEONE lives in each state and different issues affect different people who live in different areas. Just because someone lives in a major city and has over 10 years of higher education shouldn't necessarily make that person's more densely populated area have more of a say than someone who lives on a farm and has less education in a more sparsely populated rural area. Clearly if more people live in an area, they should have more electoral votes than an area that has less people, but a popular vote only would make the city area votes take even more weight than they already do and I feel that is not fair to a great deal of Americans that dont happen to be privliged or lucky enough to be in this cool, well educated elite that you refer to... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 21:49:41 +0000

Bush took 58% of the college educated vote in Ohio. Educational background does not break down along urban/rural lines. Other than to antagonize you, I don't think either dawnbixtler or tendiamonds or I have implied otherwise. Living in a densely populated area _does_not_ give a person more say in the presidential election. Why can't each persons vote be weighted equally? We're agreeing here: a densely populated area should not have more say than a sparsely populated area. Areas shouldn't vote for president, people should. Each person should have the same amount of say as any other person, regardless of where they live.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 22:01:37 +0000

Actually, I think that if you are educated, your vote should count another tenth of a vote for each of the following: non-white, non-straight, non-wealthy, non-christian, non-male. Whoopi Goldberg gets 1.3 votes, assuming she likes dick. Power to the NC.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 22:06:02 +0000

A) whats the NC? Sorry, Im a little behind the times B) Is the post you made a joke, or were you serious? I honestly couldnt tell... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 22:13:26 +0000

He's joking. ...I think.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 22:15:23 +0000

Let's get back to it: Bush won the popular vote. Let each vote be weighted equally, by getting rid of the Electoral College. Rural states will stay have there land area represented in Congress with two Senators and the one gauranteed Representative.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 22:35:58 +0000

Maybe I need to start from the top... "Is it the argument that the "cooler" states went for Kerry?" What's the argument being attributed?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-04 23:15:16 +0000

OK, so people who live in rural areas votes should weigh more? I don't understand....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-04 23:20:50 +0000

I thought the point of democracy was to make every vote count evenly. Why should the rural vote count more? Should someone from Orange, MA have a bigger say in whose Governor of Mass than I do in Somerville? Should my vote count more for mayor of Somerville than those in more densely populated East Somerville? It seems so unamerican. Honestly, I would like an explaination...

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 01:02:59 +0000

Its not that it should count more, but with determining our officials on a Natioanl level by popular vote ONLY that you argue for, 20 farmers from Idaho all in the same town which live in a completely different situation than 200 people packed together in a city, the 200 people completely drown out the 20. I have no idea what formula should be applied to weight votes, but it IS important to make sure anybody living anywhere in America has their voice heard. I think this was one of the reasons to use the Electoral College and I happen to think it is a good one. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 01:06:57 +0000

I think the argument(s) I'm refferring to are things I've seen cited on this board whether it be Dawn's studies cited from Maryland that I am somehow less sophisticated and educated than the rest of my brethren in the Northeast just because I would dare to question the style of leadership Kerry would promote, or even some of yr replies, TGL, in this very thread. Why is it again that I am misinformed? I'm really thick-skulled on this particular issue.... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 01:18:59 +0000

Why should we value the 20 over the 200? Once you say we need to weight peoples votes, your devaluing someone, even if your goal is to lift another up. How's this weighting different than, *shudder*, affirmative action? I'm not saying change the way the Senate or House is constituted, just the chief executive. (Which is the only national leader elected by this College).

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 01:23:12 +0000

Its not a question of listening to one group and not the other. Its to make sure the United States listens to ALL the demographics in the country and a popular vote precludes this. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 01:50:29 +0000

I really think it is. If a person in Wyoming gets more say in the electoral college than I do in Massachusetts, that means my voice is devalued. The proper way to prevent the tyranny of the majority is through the Congress and the Court. Not in the method of electing the Chief Executive. Cheney used the word "mandate" in his acceptance speech. He didn't use it in 2000. The only way he could feel comfortable today using it is the 3 million vote difference in the popular vote. We currently depend on the popular vote to lend legitimacy to the Electoral College. Let's do away with this dinosaur, I say.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 05:11:21 +0000

Just to satisfy myself (someone get P. Chippy onto this, he was skeptical the other night):

state	population	electoral votes	EV / person
Wyoming	501,242	3	5.99e-06
New Hampshire	1,287,687	4	3.11e-06
Massachusetts	6,433,422	12	1.87e-06

That's overall population, 2003 estimate. Electoral vote distribution is based on the 2000 census? (Just thinking about how in 2008, the population may have shifted enough that the 4 allotted to NH might not be indicative of population seeing as with a 4% population growth per year, NH might warrant another vote.) Not sure how individual state turnout could be factored into this equation... The Wyoming resident's opinion for president is worth three times mine? And twice rladews? NH has more than twice as many people as WY, but only 25% increase in electoral votes? WY gets 2 Senators... that's the way their concerns as a State should be heard. Let every person count equally.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-05 05:13:25 +0000

Diamonds still hasn't explained the NC yet.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 05:17:05 +0000

Non-Christians?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 05:18:04 +0000

Oops, 33% increase in electoral votes from WY-->NH.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-05 06:10:28 +0000

No....

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 06:12:55 +0000

It gets better:

D.C.

563,384

3

5.32e-6

The electoral college raises the concerns of a single city over the concerns of entire states. Is this the trade-off they get for not having elected representatives in Congress? "Will give you more power than NH and MA, but less than WY in determining the president, OK?" I hear you, rladew, asking for those in less populated areas who share similar demographics to have as strong a voice as more populuous ones. Doesn't seem fair though. My understanding of the original intent of the E.C. is to shield the election process from ignorant voters. For my next trick I'll show income taxes paid per capita per state versus federal funds received per capita per state.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 14:54:05 +0000

A) Still curious about the NC B) I still think we should have the EC, although I do understand what tgl is saying: perhaps we could use a different formula to weight the votes. Instead of staying @ one extreme of how the EC is set up to the Extreme of a 100% popular vote, we could come up w/ something in the middle. No one group in America should drown out another. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 15:00:35 +0000

This other thought floated up to me this morning: demographics aren't bounded by state lines. I might share more in common with the average voter in Cleveland, OH than the average voter in Cleveland shares with the average voter in Cinicinatti, OH. Additionally: my formula for determining a voters "infleunce" by dividing the EV total for a state by it's population is probably heinously wrong. Not sure how else to do it though.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-05 15:08:17 +0000

Yeah, I'm joking, however, I seriously believe that educated people who are not of the wealthy white christian straight male vote more responsibly as demographics. Women better than men, poor (here the educated part gets really tricky) better than wealthy, nigs better than honkeys, fags better than breeders and, of course, The Jews. We can't give extra weight to their vote directly, but we can choose our votes based on their endorsements. Vice-versa, I vote against the wealthy white christian straight male endorsement. Yeah, I'm a bigot. NC is the two most offensive words in the American English lexicon... used to describe: Oprah, Condi Rice, What Kenyan Men Look For In Women, and, of course, why I have two thumbs.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-05 15:18:32 +0000

I like your tricks, tgl. The EC is clearly biased on the some people's votes mattering more than others, however, I don't like it more from the campaigning perspective. I've heard defenders of the EC say that without it politicians would jost go to the major cities and pander to that vote, however, in this system, they just go to the major cities in the swing states, and pander to them. I don't see how that is any better. I don't like that my vote counts less than someone in WY, however, I like less that my vote essentially doesn't count at all, since I live in a state that is always going to vote liberal.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 15:45:42 +0000

This is how I see the voters:

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 16:28:12 +0000

You're really an incredible specimen.

Posted by pchippy on 2004-11-05 17:07:53 +0000

(Hate having to register/login...) (grumblegrumblegrumblegrumble...) Terry, I'm not skeptical of your calculations of electoral votes per person; they are valid and illustrate a definite statistical imbalance that ought to be fixed if we wish to retain an electoral college system. But how much did this phenomenon affect the election? Can you crunch the numbers and tell us what percentage of the US population is represented by the set of states Bush won and what percentage by the states Kerry won? That would be the telling factor, if we accept that the electoral college system is OK in principle but insist it ought to be more strictly proportional. rladew's map has confused matters and tended to steer the discussion into generalizations about Bush winning lots of geographically big but unpopulated states and Kerry winning a few geographically small but heavily populated states. In fact, many of Kerry's little states happen also to have very few people--he won seven of the twelve demographically smallest states (ME, NH, HI, RI, DE, VT, DC), and two of the three smallest (VT and DC, counting DC as a state-by-courtesy). So the electoral college imbalance you describe surely worked in Kerry's favor. Conversely, Bush won four of the ten states with the largest population. Texas has more people than Massachusetts and Pennsylvania put together; the per-capita electoral votes of the Texans thus count for less than yours in Massachusetts. Incidentally, the population DENSITY of Texas is higher than that of Vermont; the population density of Colorado is higher than that of Maine; the population density of Ohio is higher than that of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania. Yet in each of these cases the more densely populated state went for Bush. Isn't it fun playing around with statistics?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 17:18:54 +0000

Who can find this strip? [Scene: Bloom County, Binkley talking to his dad (who is still half-asleep in bed).] Binkley: Well, dad, I guess it's safe to say we aren't exactly a couple of short, Hispanic, Hindu, French-speaking physically handicapped Communist gay black women. Binkley: Nope, in every regard, we're hopelessly in the majority. Ethnically, religiously, physically, economically, politically, educationally, sexually and gender-wise... we're in the solid majority. Binkley: For crying out loud, we're not even in the "Moral Majority" minority. Binkley: <shouting> In fact, we're as majority as you can get! And there's darn few of us left! Do you realize what that makes us? Binkley's Dad: A minority. Binkley: Right. I'm going to bed. Power, brother. <raises fist in air>

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 17:23:23 +0000

Fascinating. I love this stuff :) _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 17:42:41 +0000

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics! I'm trying to show that my argument isn't partisan, Bush would have won without the electoral college. Demographically small means states like RI and states like WY. There's the argument: demographically small states have greater power proportional to their population. I might have to start undermining my argument for states rights on social issues (abortion, gay marriage) in order to decouple the "artificial" state boundary, it's demographics, and it's power in the electoral college. Logging in is nice so that we can attribute statements to actual people.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-05 18:01:56 +0000

For those of us who disapprove of the EC _and_ Bush, this is our opportunity to act against the EC. The EC did not elect Bush, this time, no matter how you shake it. My concerns about the EC are twofold: First, 48 states go all or nothing with their EC votes regardless of the popular vote in that state. This is where it hurts the individual voter the most, I think, since folks like BQ throw away their vote in a state like MA. Also, how many states are virtually 50-50? It's ridiculous. Second, the EC votes per state that are tied to the population, would be fine, but then every state gets two more. These are like the green spots in roulette, all of the statistics are fairly based on there being 36 possibilities when there are actually are 38. (37 on non Vegas-style boards) Nobody is going to tell you that going into a casino and betting on roulette is a statistically good idea, so why should we vote that way? Again, ridiculous. The more I think about it, the more voting with the EC in place seems like gambling. Roll the dice for your state to blow one way or another in the swing states. Fix all of the odds so they are loaded... I don't understand how this is democratic. You'll also notice that when we go off spreading democracy in our nation building, we never install an EC. There are rural and urban areas in Afganistan, but we installed a straight democracy there. Do we think they're too dumb to handle it, or is it the other way around?

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 18:34:58 +0000

[off color humor]So I have to be held accountable for all the redneck racist shit I spew out of my sewer mouth[/off color humor] _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 18:37:41 +0000

So do we all agree that the EC sucks? I think there is no chance of getting it removed though as it clearly favors the most efficient use of political candidates ad money and makes the elections more predictable for those in power. It also ensure a two party system. If you take the first Perot candidacy, I believe that was the closest we have come to have a third party since the big 2 took everything. Athough he got a HUGE amount of the popular vote, he could not get even 1 EC vote. From the wikipedia "In the election, he received 19% of the popular vote (but no electoral votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election." So the question is, since those in power clearly want this thing around, how does one actually get rid of it?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-05 18:38:27 +0000

I used this argument last night. Are we going to put the EC into place in Iraq? Odds are we don't. But back to the current problem, the EC actually also raises questions about EC vote per tax dollar. Kerry easily won the states that bring in the most tax dollars. Now I'm am absolutely NOT advocating an EC votes based on how much Fedral tax your state provides, but to diminish a vote where you pay more taxes, also seems odd, and is again an argument for shear popular vote. States rights? Well if the referendum to split the EC in Colorado passed I'd be more optimistic, but it is my understanding it lost by a shit load. NCs...

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 18:38:33 +0000

Did I mention that I hate immigrants?

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 18:43:54 +0000

WTF IS THE NC????? WILL SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME OUT IN THIS DILEMMA????? _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-05 18:45:34 +0000

Scroll up a bit, I explained it as clearly as Kerry explained his policies.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 18:45:44 +0000

Yes it lost by a shit load, and I was one of those who voted against it. The problem is that this can only work if everyone does it. Colorado would have been the only state to do this and as a result of its political split, would mean that the state would only be worth 1 net EC vote. (9 ECV total, 4 definitely go dem, 4 definitely go pub, leaving only 1 to be gained). CO would suddenly become completely irrelevant on the presidential stage. In order for this to work, we need to change it at the federal level.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-05 18:46:55 +0000

Are you listening to yourself, you immigrant?

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-05 19:09:51 +0000

NC!