Author
Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes
(Read 3100350 times)

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38654 on:** October 30, 2024, 04:41:01 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 04:23:06 PM

Hmmm. The idea of an electoral college itself may not have been to protect rural voters, but the inclusion of the total of senators and members of the house in determining the number of electoral college votes that a state gets was.

I find it unlikely rural v. urban voting was a big concern of the Founding Fathers. At the time, about 3-5 percent of the population lived in cities.

Gigem · « **Reply #38655 on:** October 30, 2024, 04:50:30 PM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on October 30, 2024, 03:57:55 PM

I guess I am less sure what it is checking and balancing nowadays. and how much that particular thing has value.

Like, it was designed for a time when almost none of us would ever leave our state unless we lived on a border. And when states were principle units of a country. And an era where some of us probably couldn’t vote at all. I think that’s broken up to a degree with different communications, movement patterns and such.

It’s all just different ways to get a majority/large plurality. I tend to prefer just votes (one person, one vote). Others prefer the clunky uneven blocks that are states.

I mean, I'm still kinda of the opinion that states are kind of their own country. At least, I feel that way about Texas, but maybe it's just the old Republic of Texas persona that persists 150+ years later.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38656 on:** October 30, 2024, 04:53:49 PM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on October 30, 2024, 04:41:01 PM

I find it unlikely rural v. urban voting was a big concern of the Founding Fathers. At the time, about 3-5 percent of the population lived in cities.

It was more populous/less populous back then, but it was essentially the same issue: primarily agricultural economy (rural) vs. more industrial economy (urban).

bayareabadger · « **Reply #38657 on:** October 30, 2024, 05:12:32 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on October 30, 2024, 04:50:30 PM

I mean, I'm still kinda of the opinion that states are kind of their own country. At least, I feel that way about Texas, but maybe it's just the old Republic of Texas persona that persists 150+ years later.

I think in terms of vibes, but not structurally,

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38658 on:** October 30, 2024, 05:14:07 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 04:53:49 PM

It was more populous/less populous back then, but it was essentially the same issue: primarily agricultural economy (rural) vs. more industrial economy (urban).

I'm hardly an expert, but some Googling suggests 95% of the population was in agriculture and any real industrialization was still 40 years away. Certainly, smaller states v. larger states was a point of contention throughout the entire process, but a rural/urban divide, not so much.

In any event, the electoral college doesn't really even help that. It's a popular vote for president, run through an algorithm that borders more on randomness than anything. Wyoming is the least populous state, so the electoral college does make their votes count more than those of California or Florida. But as far as I can tell, Harris hasn't visited Wyoming at all, and Trump came for a luncheon fundraiser one time this cycle. I could be wrong there, just relying on Google, but neither candidate has shown much interest in the state or its people. That's because it's in the bag for Trump. Rural voters in Michigan, OTOH, are in strong demand and therefore count way more. As do the urban voters of Michigan.

A system which makes the most important voters the ones who live in states that are approximately 50/50 for each candidate doesn't make any sense.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38659 on:** October 30, 2024, 05:23:06 PM »

You may well be right on the rural/urban point. Somethig to think on another time.

But the electoral college, by assigning electors for president based on both the number of congressional districts, and the number of senators, very definitely put the thumb on the scale for less populous states--and incorporated the 3/5 compromise, giving slave holding states greater proportional representation in the selection of the president.

In today's age, the rural/urban mix of a state has a lot to do with whether it is more or less populous. So smaller--generally more rural (Hawaii might be an exception) states are overrepresented in the EC.

And that's where I see the wisdom in the EC, even today: as noted before, California and New York should not dominate all the federal political decisions for Kansas and Wyoming (or Hawaii and Vermont, for that matter). Somehow, those smaller, less populous states should have a say in electing the President.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38660 on:** October 30, 2024, 05:34:10 PM »

Quote

And that's where I see the wisdom in the EC, even today: as noted before, California and New York should not dominate all the federal political decisions for Kansas and Wyoming (or Hawaii and Vermont, for that matter). Somehow, those smaller, less populous states should have a say in electing the President.

There is no question the electoral college makes voters in Wyoming have their vote count more than voters in bigger states. But it also fails them based factors largely outside their control. Simply switching the electoral college to proportions based on the vote maintains that disparity and also gives campaigns a reason to pay attention to every state.

I find it insane, literally insane, that candidates just ignore huge swathes of the country. It's not insane, it's just the electoral college.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38661 on:** October 30, 2024, 07:11:23 PM »

A candidate probably can't just focus on big cities, but do you think a popular vote would result in the states with populations of 1 million or less getting any more attention than they do now? In the last century, three elections have been decided by a popular vote difference of less than one million: Kennedy in 60 (113K), Nixon in 68 (512K), and W. in 2000 (-544K). Most of the small states lean pretty heavily in one direction or another, which means a candidate would have to decide to put their money into campaigning in a place with a relatively monolithic vote. That seems like an unlikely place for campaigns to focus their resources. The bang for the buck just isn't there. And campaigns are definitely focused on where they will get the most return on their investment. There might be more get out the vote spending in those states, but I'm not at all sure of even that.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38662 on:** October 30, 2024, 08:13:50 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 07:11:23 PM

A candidate probably can't just focus on big cities, but do you think a popular vote would result in the states with populations of 1 million or less getting any more attention than they do now? In the last century, three elections have been decided by a popular vote difference of less than one million: Kennedy in 60 (113K), Nixon in 68 (512K), and W. in 2000 (-544K). Most of the small states lean pretty heavily in one direction or another, which means a candidate would have to decide to put their money into campaigning in a place with a relatively monolithic vote. That seems like an unlikely place for campaigns to focus their resources. The bang for the buck just isn't there. And campaigns are definitely focused on where they will get the most return on their investment. There might be more get out the vote spending in those states, but I'm not at all sure of even that.

Yeah. I think so, at least. The math works out. Wyoming went for Trump in 2020 70-26. They have three electoral votes. There is no way Biden was winning the state and no way Trump could lose it, so there is no reason for either to spend time there.

But if Biden gets an electoral vote at 33 percent... that's a heck of a lot more doable. Obviously, they aren't going to live in Wyoming, but there is at least a reason to campaign there instead of ignore it entirely.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38663 on:** October 30, 2024, 08:35:26 PM »

Are you thinking an electoral college popularly elected (and allocated proportionately) by state?

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38664 on:** October 30, 2024, 09:32:11 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 08:35:26 PM

Are you thinking an electoral college popularly elected (and allocated proportionately) by state?

Yes. Basically exactly as it is now except electors are awarded by the proportion of the vote instead of winner takes all

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #38665 on:** October 30, 2024, 09:56:37 PM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on October 30, 2024, 09:32:11 PM

Yes. Basically exactly as it is now except electors are awarded by the proportion of the vote instead of winner takes all

So a national popular vote masquerading as the EC?

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #38666 on:** October 31, 2024, 01:10:48 AM »

why bother with the EC then?

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #38667 on:** October 31, 2024, 01:19:18 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on October 30, 2024, 02:59:04 PM

California is weird.

Orange County has nothing in common with rural Southern California except a propensity to vote similarly. A big portion of rural Southern California is part of the 909 area code, and in OC referring to someone as being "909" is an insult. Trust me, we don't want them and they don't want us.

You'd be better off putting Orange County with San Diego County. Keep Hawaii. After all, OC can be part of "Holiday California" because we have Disneyland

San Diego County tended to be red in Presidential elections up until about 2008, and is heavily influenced by the military culture.

It's true that LA County people basically think Orange County is San Diego, and SD County people think Orange County is LA, but I think ALL of them would agree that Orange County is nothing like Riverside or Imperial Counties. IMHO Orange County culturally fits better with SD County.

Add Imperial County to Arizona. Add the populated portion of Riverside County (along the I-15 corridor) to the new OC/SD/HI state, or to Industrial LA, and push the rest to Arizona. Add the populated portion of San Bernardino County to Industrial LA and push the rest to Arizona.

Then as you get north of the San Bernardino Mountains and into the Central Valley and high desert, it gets tricky. Most of the high desert areas and the Sierras would probably be fine to add to Nevada.

The Central Valley is probably culturally CA and would fit in a big state encompassing everything from the Central Coast (think anything north of Ventura County) but are farmers who hate the state government and SoCal cities over water rights. That said, including them, along with the Central Coast (lots of farms, wine country), the Bay Area, Sacramento, and then Coastal California north of there including Napa/Sonoma, and some of the farm areas north of Sacramento, could make sense. At least the farmers of the area would all be combined, and would have their interests less diluted than they are today including all of the LA/OC megalopolis and the SD metropolis in their politics.

As you get farther into rural northern California and into southern Oregon, split all that off and shove them in with Nevada as well. They hate Sacramento AND Salem, and hate being dominated by both. These are the "state of Jefferson" people, who may not be happy about being shoved into Nevada, but would be MUCH happier than remaining part of CA/OR.

That's how I'd do it.

I thought people didn't like realignment threads, lol.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

Gigem

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

bayareabadger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

betarhoalphadelta

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

OrangeAfroMan

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

OrangeAfroMan

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out