US Erection 12 *AND* 16

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9794
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Topper » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:17 am

Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:17 am
Topper wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:18 pm
... the Electoral College is Proportional Representation ...
yadda yadda yadda
Current allocation is based on the 2010 census.

Have you seen the nonsense proposals we are being asked to vote on?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Per » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:20 pm

Topper wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:17 am
Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:17 am
Topper wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:18 pm
... the Electoral College is Proportional Representation ...
yadda yadda yadda
Current allocation is based on the 2010 census.

Have you seen the nonsense proposals we are being asked to vote on?
No, I have not. But proportional reoresentation typically means that eg 15% of the votes gives you 15% of the seats.
That is not how the electoral college works. And if you mean that the number of electors reflects the size of the population in each state, that's not true either. No state gets less than three. Thus a vote in Wyoming has four times the value of a vote in California. And even if the numbers mortored the population sizes, it would still not be proportional as most state use a winner takes all system.

Eleven states have however pledged to give all its electors to the candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote. This will only go into effect though if enough states agree to this that they get past the 270 electors threshold. At present they only have like two thirds of that. But this means the US coould eventually switch to a system where the candidate that gets more votes always wins.

Once they've accomplished that no-brainer, maybe they can start looking into adopting the metric system and leave the medieval system they use for weights and measures today to the history books. :drink:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 4634
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by micky107 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:14 pm

The metric system. For simpletons that can only count to ten.
It's restrictive.

Just another sad time in Canadian 70s history thanks to "just not and never will be ready's" father, or so we're told, father.
Ski bunny mania.
"evolution"

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11644
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:34 am

Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:20 pm

But this means the US coould eventually switch to a system where the candidate that gets more votes always wins.

Once they've accomplished that no-brainer,
That makes way too much sense for old Hoss out in the sticks of Wyomin’

“Can’t be lettin’ them uneducated black folk havin’ the ah....hilbility to swing the polls in the wrong direction, ya hear”
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9794
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Topper » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:57 am

RoyalDude wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:34 am
Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:20 pm

But this means the US coould eventually switch to a system where the candidate that gets more votes always wins.

Once they've accomplished that no-brainer,
That makes way too much sense for old Hoss out in the sticks of Wyomin’

“Can’t be lettin’ them uneducated black folk havin’ the ah....hilbility to swing the polls in the wrong direction, ya hear”
I completely disagree. That would mean the political system would be dominated by dense urban populations.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Per » Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:55 pm

Topper wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:57 am
RoyalDude wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:34 am
Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:20 pm

But this means the US coould eventually switch to a system where the candidate that gets more votes always wins.

Once they've accomplished that no-brainer,
That makes way too much sense for old Hoss out in the sticks of Wyomin’

“Can’t be lettin’ them uneducated black folk havin’ the ah....hilbility to swing the polls in the wrong direction, ya hear”
I completely disagree. That would mean the political system would be dominated by dense urban populations.
Do you have a problem with the concept that every vote should carry the same weight?

The beauty of proportional voting is that it also renders gerrymandering pointless.
No matter how you draw the lines on the map, it is still the total that counts.

And it's not like every one living in the city is dense... :drink:
Last edited by Per on Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Per » Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:57 pm

Also had to share this:

Image
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 4634
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by micky107 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:55 pm

No-way, Per.
Has to be the riding system in the US and Canada.
Solely popular vote may work for small, less diversified countries but not here.
Just because a region may not have a vast population doesn't mean it shouldn't have an equal say.

In fact, here in Canada, I would like to move further away from popular vote.
That means moving towards equalizing the ridings around the country.

Explain why that would be wrong.

please
"evolution"

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Reefer2 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:22 pm

Per wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:55 pm
Topper wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:57 am
RoyalDude wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:34 am
Per wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:20 pm

But this means the US coould eventually switch to a system where the candidate that gets more votes always wins.

Once they've accomplished that no-brainer,
That makes way too much sense for old Hoss out in the sticks of Wyomin’

“Can’t be lettin’ them uneducated black folk havin’ the ah....hilbility to swing the polls in the wrong direction, ya hear”
I completely disagree. That would mean the political system would be dominated by dense urban populations.
Do you have a problem with the concept that every vote should carry the same weight?

The beauty of proportional voting is that it also renders gerrymandering pointless.
No matter how you draw the lines on the map, it is still the total that counts.

And it's not like every one living in the city is dense... :drink:
no way to proportional voting, we have in BC a minority government and the Greens hold too much power. Say no to special interest groups with fringe ideas.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11644
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 pm

Say ‘no’ to Reefer
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 11009
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:48 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 pm
Say ‘no’ to Reefer
You and Mickey seem like NDP type fellas
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 4634
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by micky107 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:24 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:48 pm
RoyalDude wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 pm
Say ‘no’ to Reefer
You and Mickey seem like NDP type fellas
Not even close;

read back a ways;

more along the lines of i dont want torontonians constantly telling me wat to do
maybe in the same way a farmer in Nebraska doesn't think its a good idea for him to make his business decisions based on wat
many many peeps in down-town detroit, chigago, oakland, etc, etc, etc, think he should

sure gave that wat it deserved. fukin eh, man
awesome
"evolution"

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Per » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:02 am

micky107 wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:55 pm
No-way, Per.
Has to be the riding system in the US and Canada.
Solely popular vote may work for small, less diversified countries but not here.
Just because a region may not have a vast population doesn't mean it shouldn't have an equal say.

In fact, here in Canada, I would like to move further away from popular vote.
That means moving towards equalizing the ridings around the country.

Explain why that would be wrong.

please
There are pros and cons with both systems.

The good things about ridings with a first past the post or winner takes all system is that you have an obvious connection between a candidate and a region, each riding has its representative that is supposed to work for the best interest of that particular riding. This is also a more traditional system, where you gathered representatives from far apart places to a joint meeting in a time when there was no telecommunication available. It harks back to medieval times.

The bad things about ridings are basically these two:
1) fair representation: If you have a two party system with twenty ridings where one party wins with 51% of the vote and ten ridings where the other party gets 100% of the vote, assuming the ridings are of the same size, the party that won narrowly in twenty ridings will have a two thirds majority in parliament with just 34% of the total vote. Or say it's a first past the post system with three parties, and one of the parties gets 34% in every riding while the other two get 33% each. That means that despite all three parties having roughly the same amount of voters, one will win 100% of the seats. There will be two parties, each having nearly a third of the population behind it, but not a single seat in parliament

2) gerrymandering: because of the first problem, people have realized that in a system like this, the person who draws the lines on the map to determine the ridings controls who will win. Thus whoever is in power will attempt to redraw districts to win with as little a margin as possible in as many districts as possible, while attempting to lump as many as possible of those who vote for the opposition within as few districts as possible.
If districts/ridings were fixed over time, this would be less of a problem. But because those in power can redraw the lines, you run the risk of creating a situation where a minority wins every single time.

Proportional voting basically has opposite pros and cons.

Good things are that all voters receive a voice in parliament and that each vote carries the same weight as all other votes. A party that has 15% of the voters get 15% of the seats in parliament. This is fair representation. Also, gerrymandering is rendered useless. Since the seats are distributed based on the percentage of the total votes, it doesn't matter if you live in a district/riding with people who think like you or not. Your vote will count.
The bad thing about proportional voting is basically twofold as well:
1) not as clear ties between candidates and ridings: in order to get seats in parliament that corresponds to the share of votes each party recieves, you need bigger ridings, that elect multiple representatives, and you usually need to add a number of seats that are outside of the riding system, to adjust for discrepancies between the outcome in votes/seats. Thsi means that the connection between voter, riding and candidate gets less clear.
2) weaker governments: since it is harder to get a clear majority in a proportional system, a government must usually be formed by two or more parties forming a coalition. This means compromises must be made, and often parties cannot deliver on all their campaign promises, or if the tensions get to strong, the government will split because of differences that cannot be settled, and a new election must be held.

That being said, many countries in Northern Europe, like Germany and the Scandinavian countries have proportional systems and do rather well in most comparissons, whether regarding GDP per capita, employment, innovation, minorities rights, general happiness or what will you.

Another difference between the two systems is that in the first past the post/winner take all system you tend to get more drastic changes when there is a change of guards. In countries that use the proportional system change is often slower, as you need to get there through building consensus and compromising. Which of those scenarios that is better depends on the eye of the beholder. Change may be good, but so may stability.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9794
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Topper » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:42 am

The winner is elected to govern. Let them govern instead of wasting time building consensus. Many long term infrastructure decisions require unpopular short term consequences. Coalitions have a difficult time with that as several special interest scores need to be settled.

Proportional representation is a step towards the chaos of referendum rule.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16

Post by Per » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:07 am

Topper wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:42 am
The winner is elected to govern. Let them govern instead of wasting time building consensus. Many long term infrastructure decisions require unpopular short term consequences. Coalitions have a difficult time with that as several special interest scores need to be settled.

Proportional representation is a step towards the chaos of referendum rule.
I agree that referendums are a nightmare.

You cannot separate one issue from all its interconnecting issues.

I've often suggested that if you make three referendums on 1) increase the spending on schools, 2) increase the spending on healthcare and 3) lower the taxes, most people will say yes to all three, ignoring that they will make eachother more or less impossible.

In a representative democracy, which is far more efficient than direct democracy (which may be a good alternative for groups up to 30 people, but hardly useful at all for any group counting three digits or more), you elect representatives to make decisions. If you at the same time have decisive referendums, you undermine the mandate given to the representatives. You really can't have it both ways.

What also shocked me with the Brexit referendum was that such a complex issue that changes the fundamental workings of not only the country but the continent, could be decided by a simple majority.

In Sweden our EU membership has been written into the constitution, which means that to change it, you need a two thirds majority in parliament twice, with public elections held between the two votes.

Now, I get that the British don't really have a constitution, but still. Something as drastic as that, decided by a simple majority (51.9%) in a referendum where 72.2% voted. It's not even a majority of eligible voters. Not to mention that both Scotland and Northern Ireland, who technically consider themselves separate countries than England, voted to remain.

We'll see how it all works out. Also, the leave side have promised both to maintain open borders on Ireland and to be in control of their borders. I don't really see how thay are going to do that. I mean, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland will now become the external border of the EU. It's either open or controlled. It cannot be both. If it remains open, anyone inside the EU can take a flight to Dublin and then cross the border to Northern Ireland and effectively be in the UK. Or vice versa. So if the UK means business about controlling migration into the UK, which they promised, they have to close the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which they promised not to. Kind of makes my head hurt.

The EU has suggested the UK could implement border control between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but that has been vehemently rejected by the UK govt. So, we'll see what they do. Pretty sure one of the promises must turn out to have been a lie.

Basically, what the UK has wanted is to be able to remain in a free trade union with the EU, but stop immigration from the rest of the EU. But that's a no go from the EU. The EU was created after WW2 to prevent a new major war in Europe. The very foundation of it is that by allowing the free flow of goods, services, capital and people within Europe, the countries will become too interdependent to ever be able to start a war between themselves. There is no way the Eu will accept that a country picks and chooses between The Four Freedoms. It's a package deal.
The idea behind it is that if one country is favoured by the flow of goods and services, workers will migrate there, send money home, and the economies will more or less balance themselves.

The people in the UK were mislead to believe they could have their cake and eat it, but that is not an option that has ever been on the table.
Unfortunately that was not made clear in the choices they were given at the referendum.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Post Reply