Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Modbreak: A few posts have been hidden after the original was retracted, for the sake of continuation.

You power mad prick!

One of your posts made me lol when you said something like "and this is coming from me".

Anyways... I don't take political stuff too seriously myself as neither Trump or Clinton or Farage or Cameron or... gives two shits about what
I think about things = I focus more on myself and my life as I have at least a little control over that.

I was hoping Trump would win because at least he is different from the standard political herd. Unpredictable and potentially dangerous, yes, but different... different form the standard PC shit spewing elite politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've been over the top.

It is an interesting property of the EC as set up in the US today, with state power not adjusted by population.

Let's say that a leftie weenie leaves a righty state and moves to a leftie state. When that person does that the voting power (per person) in what remains of the righty state goes up. And moving to a lefty state will lower the voting power (per person) in the now bigger state.

If everybody but 1 person were to leave Oklahoma then Oklahoma, that one person, would still have the same amount of today power in the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fittybolger said:

You power mad prick!

One of your posts made me lol when you said something like "and this is coming from me".

Anyways... I don't take political stuff too seriously myself as neither Trump or Clinton or Farage or Cameron or... gives two shits about what
I think about things = I focus more on myself and my life as I have at least a little control over that.

I was hoping Trump would win because at least he is different from the standard political herd. Unpredictable and potentially dangerous, yes, but different... different form the standard PC shit spewing elite politicians.

Keep up. Cameron is no longer PM, and has retired ;)

Farage never gave 2 shits about anyone else's opinion anyway ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fittybolger said:

You power mad prick!

I thought the reigning fashion was for "power mad cunts"! (Insert emote) 

Pity I missed tasty stuff. I have faith in Doro's moderation (so long as he doesn't spew insults himself). I assume he was right to delete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jedy2 said:

I thought the reigning fashion was for "power mad cunts"! (Insert emote) 

Pity I missed tasty stuff. I have faith in Doro's moderation (so long as he doesn't spew insults himself). I assume he was right to delete. 

I informed Darmokk regarding his options after his post, along with the polite request to follow my advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

Keep up. Cameron is no longer PM, and has retired ;)

Farage never gave 2 shits about anyone else's opinion anyway ;)

 

I know that Cameron is gone! What? Has all that ABBA finally destroyed everything between the ears they entered through?

Hehe... Cameron... gone...  Farage resigned and his replacement lasted, what, 10 hours before Farage had to become interim UKIP leader again.... and Hillary is gone but seems to be reviewing the fine print of her Faustian contract with the Electoral College voters... Trump is the last man standing and who woulda thunk all this would've been the case last Christmas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

Well, I've been over the top.

It is an interesting property of the EC as set up in the US today, with state power not adjusted by population.

Let's say that a leftie weenie leaves a righty state and moves to a leftie state. When that person does that the voting power (per person) in what remains of the righty state goes up. And moving to a lefty state will lower the voting power (per person) in the now bigger state.

If everybody but 1 person were to leave Oklahoma then Oklahoma, that one person, would still have the same amount of today power in the EC.

And vice versa. As well, two lefties could move to Oklahoma and swing the whole state!! 

States do get apportioned representatives by population in the House. States each get two Senators. The EC number is the sum. So the EC does factor in state population. All by design. But this has been said already.

Meh, get a candidate that appeals to Americans from most states and runs a better campaign and isn't corruptly vile and there will be different results .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Meh, get a candidate that appeals to Americans from most states and runs a better campaign and isn't corruptly vile and there will be different results .

 

Easy to say, almost impossible to accomplish.  Personally, I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  I always said that if the Republican party put forward a sane candidate I'd vote for him/her.  However, the Tea Party and the fringe right won't stand for any candidate that doesn't hold strict, archaic, social and religious views.   Which is one of the reasons why Trump won.  He is so anti-establishment (or at least, he campaigned like he was) and hit all the right fear buttons (who cares if the gays next door want to get married and adopt kids when the Muslims are out to kill us), that voters ate that shit up.

Give me a Republican that ditches (or at least subdues) the socially backward aspect of the traditional Republican platform and I think you would have a candidate that might regain some of the public's trust in the government--instead of picking the one candidate who would probably tear it all down if he could, simply because they are tired of the political bullshit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

And vice versa. As well, two lefties could move to Oklahoma and swing the whole state!! 

States do get apportioned representatives by population in the House. States each get two Senators. The EC number is the sum. So the EC does factor in state population. All by design. But this has been said already.

Meh, get a candidate that appeals to Americans from most states and runs a better campaign and isn't corruptly vile and there will be different results .

 

Well, the current difference is what, some people have 3x the voting power than the coasties?

Doesn't look like it is working too well.

Due to the EC liberals moving to Oklahoma simply throw their vote away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

Well, the current difference is what, some people have 3x the voting power than the coasties?

Doesn't look like it is working too well.

Due to the EC liberals moving to Oklahoma simply throw their vote away.

As do conservatives that move to New York or California. Round and round we go.

The republic of the United States of America was set up so that states' voices counted, both in Congress and the election of the President. There's always been discrepancy on how much votes "counted". Check out Rhode Island or Delaware and Virginia populations versus EC votes in 1796 and 1800.

2 hours ago, Papi said:

Easy to say, almost impossible to accomplish.  Personally, I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  I always said that if the Republican party put forward a sane candidate I'd vote for him/her.  However, the Tea Party and the fringe right won't stand for any candidate that doesn't hold strict, archaic, social and religious views.   Which is one of the reasons why Trump won.  He is so anti-establishment (or at least, he campaigned like he was) and hit all the right fear buttons (who cares if the gays next door want to get married and adopt kids when the Muslims are out to kill us), that voters ate that shit up.

Give me a Republican that ditches (or at least subdues) the socially backward aspect of the traditional Republican platform and I think you would have a candidate that might regain some of the public's trust in the government--instead of picking the one candidate who would probably tear it all down if he could, simply because they are tired of the political bullshit.

 

Depends on what you trust the government to do. ;)

The two main party candidates were both horrible, imo. They could only beat each other, pretty much. Trump got lots of votes from mainstream people and not just the fringe right though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Papi said:

Meh, get a candidate that appeals to Americans from most states and runs a better campaign and isn't corruptly vile and there will be different results .

The problem is that there are a large number of people that will only vote one way, it doesnt matter who the candidate is people vote for the party that meets there views.  

It might matter in the few swing states, which is exactly as it is now.  Without changing the voting process then the candidate wont matter in many of the states

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The problem is that there are a large number of people that will only vote one way, it doesnt matter who the candidate is people vote for the party that meets there views.  

It might matter in the few swing states, which is exactly as it is now.  Without changing the voting process then the candidate wont matter in many of the states

Not always... in 1984 Reagan won 49 of 50 states in electoral college and 59% of the popular vote.

Reagan and John Wayne need to be added to Mount Rushmore!!!111!!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cossieuk said:

The problem is that there are a large number of people that will only vote one way, it doesnt matter who the candidate is people vote for the party that meets there views.  

It might matter in the few swing states, which is exactly as it is now.  Without changing the voting process then the candidate wont matter in many of the states

Elections around the world have many people that only vote one way, regardless of the individual candidate. Likely a majority, like you say.

Still, lots of swing voters in many states. In some states those swing voters matter more than other states. Candidates try to appeal to those voters and the quality of the candidate does matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Elections around the world have many people that only vote one way, regardless of the individual candidate. Likely a majority, like you say.

Still, lots of swing voters in many states. In some states those swing voters matter more than other states. Candidates try to appeal to those voters and the quality of the candidate does matter.

The swing states are in the minority.  So these are the places where candidates appear the most, and offer the most.  The other states where a candidate knows they will win or loose just get ignored.  The quality of the candidate only matters for a handful of states which sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The swing states are in the minority.  So these are the places where candidates appear the most, and offer the most.  The other states where a candidate knows they will win or loose just get ignored.  The quality of the candidate only matters for a handful of states which sucks

Well, it mattered in this election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And you're still a dumbass bigot, so yeah....

Not to mention you're actually wrong on this, but you're so convinced you're right that nothing I will ever say will change your mind.

Or rather... it's because the US is closer to 50 countries working in tight coordination - more an example of what the UN could be... but that point seems lost on all who bemoan the EC...

Feel free to leave. The only economy that those high-weight-per-voter states have is reshuffled tax money from the coasts anyway. We are better off without you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darmokk said:

Feel free to leave. The only economy that those high-weight-per-voter states have is reshuffled tax money from the coasts anyway. We are better off without you.

Really? You're the one who can't seem to live within the current rules. Maybe time for you to consider leaving??? The people in the Dakotas and Texas would be interested to learn your theories on how the economy works if they had time after pumping the oil and natural gas that keeps the cities alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darmokk said:

Feel free to leave. The only economy that those high-weight-per-voter states have is reshuffled tax money from the coasts anyway. We are better off without you.

 

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 10:27 PM, Darmokk said:

I was specifically talking about our local upset Trump supporter. Now he comes out of the closet as a Christianity driven hick.

"Feel free to leave" and "local upset Trump supporter"?

Trump won and as such I see no need for his supporters to leave or be upset.

All those celebrity Clinton supporters who said they would leave if Trump won have changed their minds... Madonna decided not to give head to every Clinton voter (apparently she might have missed a couple in her normal life activities)... This election has certainly brought out the silliness in people and it seems you may have drunk some of that koolaid Darmokk. 

As for Electoral College vs. popular vote being used to select a President. The time to address changing the rules is before the game is played and not after it is finished. All the talk about the Electoral College becoming "faithless electors" (I believe that is the term)... if this movement should actually succeed in having Clinton named president I believe the USA would be in real danger of yuge civil unrest and violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well electoral college passed overwhelmingly in favor of Trump.  2 Trump electorates in Texas (1 was known for weeks now) voted against Trump, but the surprise... 

4 Washington state electorates (double Trumps) turned on Hillary; 3 for Collin Powell & one for some Dakota pipeline chief.

now that the #Hamilton gambit has failed...  the #resist movement will switch to the impeachment drum.  :F

& Hillary will continue blaming everyone under the sun for her failings.

& the Dems are still not showing any signs of being ready for 2018 & 2020.

& i will continue to not be surprised when they keep failing.

Republican super majority 2018?  8 years of Trump?  i'm heavily leaning towards a yes on both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the number of faithless voters (10 in total) for 2016 electoral college hasn't happened since 1836.

2 flipped against Trump.

8 attempted to flip against Hillary, only 5 were successful. (3 failed according to state laws in place.)  breakdown here:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/faithless-electors-list-who-switched-flipped-electoral-college-vote-from-trump-clinton-results-names-states/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of how the EC broke down versus state population, of the 10 lowest populated states (and DC), Trump won 6 and Clinton 4. Of the 10 most populated states, Trump won 7 and Clinton won 3. This isn't strictly a case where Trump racked up all the small states and none of the big ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

looks like the number of faithless voters (10 in total) for 2016 electoral college hasn't happened since 1836.

2 flipped against Trump.

8 attempted to flip against Hillary, only 5 were successful. (3 failed according to state laws in place.)  breakdown here:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/faithless-electors-list-who-switched-flipped-electoral-college-vote-from-trump-clinton-results-names-states/

Well I am outraged!

I hope Hillary informs us soon if it was a vast right wing conspiracy or Russian hackers or an FBI plot or seasonal allergies (aka pneumonia if caught on video) or... I know whatever the reason I am going to move to Canada if... ummm... well I would if I didn't already live in Canada. I hope Madonna gives those "faithless electors" head this time at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2016 at 6:27 PM, Almagnus1 said:

Exactly.  HRC let her hubris defeat her, and Trump played to win.

How that's not obvious to the HRC supporters at this point is beyond me....

the factors for Her loss are Legion.

according to wikileaks, this was the biggest cause:

almost everything back-fired, TBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2016 at 7:02 PM, FundinStrongarm said:

Speaking of how the EC broke down versus state population, of the 10 lowest populated states (and DC), Trump won 6 and Clinton 4. Of the 10 most populated states, Trump won 7 and Clinton won 3. This isn't strictly a case where Trump racked up all the small states and none of the big ones.

To further delve into the numbers, let's address the bugaboo regarding disproportionate voting power. If you removed the Senate component from the EC and awarded electors on the basis of House seats only with the winner still getting all from each state, Trump still wins ~245-190. (The House apportions Seats by population, with the only proviso being that each state gets minimum of 1 seat.)

I haven't broken down the numbers if you awarded based on one vote per House district but considering the House split 241-194, I would expect Trump to win as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

To further delve into the numbers, let's address the bugaboo regarding disproportionate voting power. If you removed the Senate component from the EC and awarded electors on the basis of House seats only with the winner still getting all from each state, Trump still wins ~245-190. (The House apportions Seats by population, with the only proviso being that each state gets minimum of 1 seat.)

I haven't broken down the numbers if you awarded based on one vote per House district but considering the House split 241-194, I would expect Trump to win as well.

Quote

 

You just replaced one distortion of voting power with another. Not very convincing.

You could have the EC, but with voting power by state proportional to the state's population. Not some other random makeup of weight that came together randomly over the last 200 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...