Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Re Electoral College:
Proportional representation of EC votes would be a fun new development for us gamey-type electoral politics geeks.
Take Idaho, for example. It's got 4 electoral votes. So they could be distributed between the Dems and Repubs as 0-4 (0% D 100% R), 1-3 (25% D 75% R), 2-2 (50% D, 50% R), 3-1 (75% D, 25% R), and 4-0 (100% D, 0% R).
The way you'd split votes is by whichever's closest to the result. For example, if you had a two-party result of 30% D 70% R, then you'd go with 1 D 3 R. On the other hand, 40% D 60% R would go to 2 D 2 R.
Currently, Republicans get about 60% to 70% of the two-party vote (between Dems and Repubs) in Idaho. Moving that to 50% would be a really tall order for Dems. However, moving that to 62.4% would be actually kinda possible.
So, if proportional representation were a thing, you'd suddenly get battles across the country to move things one electoral vote at a time — and a bunch of new goalposts, that aren't 50% anymore but instead are calculated depending on how many E Vs each state has.
edited 21st Mar '14 11:12:05 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
Some goalposts would still be 50%. For states with odd numbers of E Vs that are almost evenly split, this would be the case. Consider Virginia, for example, with 13 E Vs. 6D 7R would be 46.15% D 53.85% R (more decimal places available as needed). 7D 6R would be 53.85% D 46.15% R. Mathematically, the midpoint between them is at 50% D 50% R, so as long as neither side gets a blowout, you're still fighting over that one EV in the middle. But 5-8 is 38.46% to 61.54%, so let's say the Dem candidate gets more than the midpoint between 53.85% and 61.54% (which would be 7.5/13 = 57.69%), then the result could be 8D 5R.
So your goalposts for Virginia become 50%, 57.69%, etc..
States with even numbers of E Vs would no longer have 50% as a magic goalpost though. They'd work like that Idaho example (though the numbers would be closer for a larger state).
So yeah, basically, it'd be tons of fun for those of us who love the numbers and love the strategy game. Probably less fun for candidates who would suddenly have to schlep themselves across the entire country fighting over one or two electoral votes in every state, though.
edited 21st Mar '14 11:13:49 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
Take the discussion of anarchy and economics systems to the proper thread. You are off topic.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Come to think of it, here's how the goalposts would work:
let TEV = total electoral vote count for the state.
the goalpost percentages would be calculated by these formulas: 0.5/TEV, 1.5/TEV, 2.5/TEV, ... (TEV - 1.5)/TEV, (TEV - 0.5)/TEV.
So for Idaho (TEV = 4), the goalposts are 0.5/4 = 12.5%, 1.5/4 = 37.5%, 2.5/4 = 62.5%, and 3.5/4 = 87.5%.
And it will only happen by coincidence that one of the goalposts for states with an odd TEV happens to be 50%.
And now I'll shut up about this unless people want to discuss it further.
edited 22nd Mar '14 12:19:45 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Well, rounding is an issue with proportional representation in a multi-seat election. If you mandate that all states use it to determine the votes of their college delegates in a presidential election, that will have some interesting effects on the smaller states.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Actually the electoral math is interesting. But what does this mean for independent/third-party candidates? Don't want to utterly shut them out.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Hmm...well I did those percentages assuming two-party vote.
I wonder what an appropriate threshold for a third party would be.
I'm pretty sure there exists a distribution of E Vs that would result in the least deviation from actual vote percentage, for any number of candidates and E Vs, with the assumption that all E Vs have to be assigned.
So you could just use that.
Wandering Jew
Jimmy Carter: Obama the Only President So Far Not to Call Me for Advice.
Nancy Pelosi Annoyed That People Won’t Stop Calling Affordable Care Act ‘Obamacare’.
edited 22nd Mar '14 2:13:58 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
scratching at .8, just hopin'
No one will be calling it Obamacare once it's as popular as Social Security, Nancy. Don't you worry.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
More like giant cherries
Obamacare is certainly easier to say.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
ACA rolls off the tongue pretty quickly.
Greetings, but can you please keep your argument in one post without multiposting?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Gunpla is amazing!
Well then.
So...yeah, the Michigan thing and all the conservatives going "OH SO A JUDGE CAN JUST OVERRULE THE MAJORITY I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DEMOCRACY" have me laughing.
I guess they only read the constitution when it fits their beliefs.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Shhh, don't let facts, the actual wording of the constitution and blatant hypocrisy get in the way of their rage.
Oh really when?
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
Uh, what did I miss? *is strangely curious about trolls and so*
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
ah
edited 22nd Mar '14 3:38:46 PM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Someone got into an electoral college thing and why it sucks.
Then this guy shows up with these massive text walls.
Then stuff.
edited 22nd Mar '14 3:35:44 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?