nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

I hear all your arguments but in my opinion, if you get more votes than the other person then you should win. Anything else is a fudge

No you shouldn't. Then you have individual states always deciding it based on size and smaller states role is removed. This system allows for individual states and therefore the people within them more of a say.

Synode

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No you shouldn't. Then you have individual states always deciding it based on size and smaller states role is removed. This system allows for individual states and therefore the people within them more of a say.

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

I just pointed out how that works above. In the current election, NY, NJ, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and California would account for 50% of the votes cast.

That means that a candidate could ignore more than half the states and still win the election. A far easier job to concentrate all your energy and money in some key high population states and lock up the presidency for years.

It may sound democratic to take the popular vote, but it's exactly the opposite. It would disenfranchise massive portions of the country.

Buer

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

The system is massively flawed but nobody has been able to improve it.

We saw both candidates fighting tooth and nail for the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire this week as the electorate from every walk of life had a voice and a vote that was worth fighting for.

That geographical spread and variety of electorate would be completely ignored if it was a popular vote. A candidate would never bother visiting Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska etc.

A candidate who is from California would have an automatic advantage given the massive population there. They could focus their entire campaign on the north east and Texas thereby addressing the majority of the population easily. That massive expanse from Chicago to the Pacific states could be ignored.

pickarooney

Time for a Califexit? Or a Texexit.

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

The smaller states role is not removed. They still have people who vote. There is zero sense in giving a small state more say just because they're small

Their role is lessened significantly if you just elect based on the popular vote. By having the electoral college system the americans have a compromise between electing the President by a popular vote among citizens and electing the President in Congress. By just using the popular vote the largest states by population will significantly control who wins. This system allows smaller states as much of a say

Swan Curry

you have to remember that the american electoral system was (and in some areas still is) mainly concerned with denying minorities, mainly african americans, suffrage, which has led to the insane mess they have today where state governments can arbitrarily close polling stations in areas that demographically have strong opposition support

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

A giant poster on the wall and 538 darts

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A giant poster on the wall and 538 darts

Seems likely.

bilston

pickarooney wrote: »

Time for a Califexit? Or a Texexit.

That did cross my mind regarding California earlier!

They have the economy for it anyway.

matthew8

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

2 for each state plus 1 for each congressional district in that state.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

matthew8 wrote: »

2 for each state plus 1 for each congressional district in that state.

And how do they decide how many congressional districts per state?

CMOTDibbler

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

How do they assign the number of collegiate votes to a state though? I assume that's not done by population size, otherwise it'd be the same as the popular vote?

It's based on the number of representatives that a state can elect except DC which gets the same amount as the least number of any state (3).

So that's 435 congressmen, 100 senators and the 3 from DC making 538.

matthew8

Buer wrote: »

The system is massively flawed but nobody has been able to improve it.

We saw both candidates fighting tooth and nail for the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire this week as the electorate from every walk of life had a voice and a vote that was worth fighting for.

That geographical spread and variety of electorate would be completely ignored if it was a popular vote. A candidate would never bother visiting Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska etc.

A candidate who is from California would have an automatic advantage given the massive population there. They could focus their entire campaign on the north east and Texas thereby addressing the majority of the population easily. That massive expanse from Chicago to the Pacific states could be ignored.

As opposed to the current system where neither candidate has to bother visiting Texas, New York or California (and around 30 other states) because they're a foregone conclusion.

matthew8

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

And how do they decide how many congressional districts per state?

Population, it's pretty much proportionate at around 1 congressional district per 750k people.

thomond2006

https://twitter.com/nelsTDM63/status/796256984609783809

Synode

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I just pointed out how that works above. In the current election, NY, NJ, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and California would account for 50% of the votes cast.

That means that a candidate could ignore more than half the states and still win the election. A far easier job to concentrate all your energy and money in some key high population states and lock up the presidency for years.

I doubt that considerably. There's zero chance they'd be able to convince every voter in a larger state. I can't believe any sane person thinks it's fair that someone who got more votes than the other person does not become President.

Sure why don't we bring in Electoral College by County in Ireland

[Deleted User]

Synode wrote: »

I doubt that considerably. There's zero chance they'd be able to convince every voter in a larger state. I can't believe any sane person thinks it's fair that someone who got more votes than the other person does not become President.

Sure why don't we bring in Electoral College by County in Ireland

A better example would be Europe where with our current system and our low population we would have absolutely no voice. As it is now we do have a voice in Europe not in line with the population it represents. Would you give that up ?

Synode

It's not as if the American States have equal voices though. The smaller States have fewer Electoral College numbers which as far as I know is based on their population. So by giving all those EC votes to one or the other, you immediately remove the voice of the people who voted the other way in that State. Absolute madness to me

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

I doubt that considerably. There's zero chance they'd be able to convince every voter in a larger state. I can't believe any sane person thinks it's fair that someone who got more votes than the other person does not become President.

Sure why don't we bring in Electoral College by County in Ireland

I said half the states. That's more than double what I listed. They don't need every vote then, do they?

The system was designed for a massive country with a hugely geographically divided population. It's not perfect, but you could easily disenfranchise huge swathes of the country with a popular poll.

It very seldom happens that theres a divergence. Al Gore was the last one. Previously it happened twice in the 1800s. Four times in over one hundred years isn't a big enough problem to change.

There are other issues that have developed such as the 'swing state' phenomenon and lately issues with turnout. But there are much bigger issues with the electoral system than the electoral college.

It would be pointless here. We're not a big country and of course it can't work in a PR system.

Synode

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The system was designed for a massive country with a hugely geographically divided population. It's not perfect, but you could easily disenfranchise huge swathes of the country with a popular poll.

I'd be feeling fairly disenfranchised if I voted Clinton but because of EC my state gave all the votes to Trump.

I still don't see how you can disenfranchise huge swathes of the country in a popular poll. Your vote counts just as much as the next persons.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

matthew8 wrote: »

Population, it's pretty much proportionate at around 1 congressional district per 750k people.

But isn't that essentially the same as what people are saying is the problem with just going with the popular vote? You target the states with the most votes, which are the states with the biggest populations.

Podge_irl

Synode wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I just pointed out how that works above. In the current election, NY, NJ, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and California would account for 50% of the votes cast.

That means that a candidate could ignore more than half the states and still win the election. A far easier job to concentrate all your energy and money in some key high population states and lock up the presidency for years.

I doubt that considerably. There's zero chance they'd be able to convince every voter in a larger state. I can't believe any sane person thinks it's fair that someone who got more votes than the other person does not become President.

Sure why don't we bring in Electoral College by County in Ireland

Isn't that basically what a parliamentary system is? The electoral college is akin to a parliament electing a Prime Minister, just without the actual parliament having any power afterwards!

CMOTDibbler

Synode wrote: »

I'd be feeling fairly disenfranchised if I voted Clinton but because of EC my state gave all the votes to Trump.

I still don't see how you can disenfranchise huge swathes of the country in a popular poll. Your vote counts just as much as the next persons.

Your voite counts for nothing if your entire state and all the neighbouring states vote for one candidate but because the other candidate has a stranglehold over the big urban centres, your vote counts for nothing, election after election.

The electoral college goes a long way towards fixing that. As I said, it's not perfect but at least you have the chance of swinging your state and making a difference.

Here's the map from 2012

And the one from this week

live_map_president.png?1478770017991

So the issue is that a small number of states swung the other way and got Trump across the line. It doesn't make the other states less important though. Texas is getting closer all the time to being a swing state, which is mad really and Florida has always been a swing state.

Turnout is the real problem. For a so-called democratic country, the US seems to work really hard to disenfranchise certain voters in certain states, whether through inefficiency that's almost encouraged or through polling times and polling laws. These issues have to be addressed first, yet people concentrate on the electoral college system as if it's the problem.

Synode

Is anyone else getting a lot of "This site can't be reached" messages on various sites. Can't access www.irishrugby.ie, http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/, www.time.com

Is another DNS server getting attacked like a few weeks ago?

Edit: Just tried on my phone with WiFi turned off and they're all fine. Must be my WiFi

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Is anyone else getting a lot of "This site can't be reached" messages on various sites. Can't access www.irishrugby.ie, http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/, www.time.com

Is another DNS server getting attacked like a few weeks ago?

Edit: Just tried on my phone with WiFi turned off and they're all fine. Must be my WiFi

Are you a Virgin Media customer?

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Are you a Virgin Media customer?

Yes, have you seen this before?

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Yes, have you seen this before?

They're currently having issues with routing, so it'll affect any traffic to sites on networks which peer with LINX for sure (https://www.linx.net/) but maybe more. Not sure how they've managed that or when they'll be able to resolve it. Been going on for a while this morning.

[Deleted User]

Synode wrote: »

Is anyone else getting a lot of "This site can't be reached" messages on various sites. Can't access www.irishrugby.ie, http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/, www.time.com

Is another DNS server getting attacked like a few weeks ago?

Edit: Just tried on my phone with WiFi turned off and they're all fine. Must be my WiFi

Very useful website for you - http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/