Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6818|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

I think the point is that it's exactly the geographic boundaries, not the congressional races, which are the problem. Don't get me wrong, a highly localised seat-by-seat campaign has some big benefits, but it is extremely susceptible to gerrymandering and that could severely undermine confidence in the electoral process. It doesn't favour Republicans per se - it favours whoever gets to draw the district boundaries in that state. Perhaps you mean some sort of Hare-Clark quota system to try and alleviate the issue, but I don't know how that would work without the preferential bit and a one-vote-per-district basis. And it would be an unholy clusterfuck by definition.

It's also worth noting that, at least here (though we have two major, major differences on top of the seat-by-seat system which could render the comparison moot) it's actually more common for the popular vote loser to win the election. So it's not necessarily true that it'll avoid that possibility.

For the record, on a fairly crude analysis, if you applied Obama's 2.5%-3.0% national popular vote margin to a model where the electoral votes are distributed on a district-by-district basis, Obama would have just won.

I think you're missing the point that it is the relative distribution of democrat vs republican-heavy locales that makes "effective" gerrymandering difficult. Any attempt to change district boundaries to weight one side or the other over the status quo would be glaringly obvious, resulting in court cases/injunctions/etc. And since it's based on census findings, it only happens every 10 years at most (roughly three presidential election cycles per census).
Why make it so complicated? Just assign electoral college votes based on proportion to popular vote. If a state has 3 electoral college votes and candidate A wins with 51% of the vote, give them 2 of the 3. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate B earns 70% of the vote, give him 7 and 3 to the other(s). Winner take all is what makes the swing states overly important.
Yeah this is veeeery similar to Hare-Clark and trust me that can be strange. EDIT: Though of course without pref. voting it's not Hare-Clark at all

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-14 23:16:12)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6296|what

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
They used to.
Back when the minorities were too minor to be an influence, sure.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6859

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
They used to.
Back when the minorities were too minor to be an influence, sure.
You really don't know the history of the GOP right?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,812|6249|eXtreme to the maX

AussieReaper wrote:

Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
Would a white democrat get the black/hispanic vote?

I reckon not.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6833|Tampa Bay Florida

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
Would a white democrat get the black/hispanic vote?

I reckon not.
Bill Clinton
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6296|what

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


They used to.
Back when the minorities were too minor to be an influence, sure.
You really don't know the history of the GOP right?
Depends on how far back you're referencing, before the Southern Strategy?

I'm talking about recent history, as the demographics are shifting.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6859

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


Back when the minorities were too minor to be an influence, sure.
You really don't know the history of the GOP right?
Depends on how far back you're referencing, before the Southern Strategy?

I'm talking about recent history, as the demographics are shifting.
anything pre1980s GOP pretty much was pro civil rights, social welfare, non-intervention etc etc
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6818|Canberra, AUS
Eisenhower's GOP was pretty moderate.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6142|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
Would a white democrat get the black/hispanic vote?

I reckon not.
inane little opines
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6554|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think you're missing the point that it is the relative distribution of democrat vs republican-heavy locales that makes "effective" gerrymandering difficult. Any attempt to change district boundaries to weight one side or the other over the status quo would be glaringly obvious, resulting in court cases/injunctions/etc. And since it's based on census findings, it only happens every 10 years at most (roughly three presidential election cycles per census).
Why make it so complicated? Just assign electoral college votes based on proportion to popular vote. If a state has 3 electoral college votes and candidate A wins with 51% of the vote, give them 2 of the 3. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate B earns 70% of the vote, give him 7 and 3 to the other(s). Winner take all is what makes the swing states overly important.
My proposition makes results more granular and geographically focused, I think--the candidate that got the majority in that specific congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and the two votes associated with the senators go to the overall state popular vote winner. Your proposal is a middle ground. Would still be better than the current system.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think you're missing the point that it is the relative distribution of democrat vs republican-heavy locales that makes "effective" gerrymandering difficult. Any attempt to change district boundaries to weight one side or the other over the status quo would be glaringly obvious, resulting in court cases/injunctions/etc. And since it's based on census findings, it only happens every 10 years at most (roughly three presidential election cycles per census).
Why make it so complicated? Just assign electoral college votes based on proportion to popular vote. If a state has 3 electoral college votes and candidate A wins with 51% of the vote, give them 2 of the 3. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate B earns 70% of the vote, give him 7 and 3 to the other(s). Winner take all is what makes the swing states overly important.
My proposition makes results more granular and geographically focused, I think--the candidate that got the majority in that specific congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and the two votes associated with the senators go to the overall state popular vote winner. Your proposal is a middle ground. Would still be better than the current system.
All your proposal does is assure a Republican President based on the current districting. Districts by their very nature are dynamic. They are supposed to represent a certain proportion of the population, 1 Representative for every 760,000 people or so as of the last census (which is a hideous proportion). Because people move, the districts are forced to change over time to better reflect the populace. When these changes occur, they are gerrymandered by the current ruling party in order to entrench themselves. They'll take a known Democratic or Republican population and shove it into a district where they know it will be overwhelmed.

But you know this already, you're just finding a silly way to bitch about the election results. It's like pulling up this map:
https://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/11/07/CountyMap2012.main.jpg
and saying that Romney should've won because more of the land mass is red instead of blue. It's too bad cows can't vote.

Last edited by Jay (2012-11-15 09:26:02)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England
Gotta say, it's amazing how well that blue band across the south lines up with I-20:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Interstate_20_map.png/800px-Interstate_20_map.png
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Mutantbear
Semi Constructive Criticism
+1,431|6108|London, England

Jay wrote:

Gotta say, it's amazing how well that blue band across the south lines up with I-20:
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ https://i.imgur.com/Xj4f2.png
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6833|Tampa Bay Florida
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

Those are the ex slaves. 

http://deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-pres … coastline/
Super cool! Thanks for posting that
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England
The end of liberty, baseball in America

This may be my last post here at Baseball Nation for quite some time, possibly forever. I had a long discussion with my friend Rob "Cool Guy" Neyer last night. He has agreed, tentatively to take over this website. I cannot think of a better person to run things. He has a good head on his shoulders. He has the absolute right ideology, a Bill James Sabermetrician who recognizes the evils of traditional baseball analysis, and supports a strong analytical foundation, defense of statistics, and of course, our personal rights to make fun of the dinosaurs in the BBWAA. Please give Rob all your support in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.

Marc Normandin will still be contributing of course. Rob will take great care to publish all his numerous articles, and witty commentary. I am deeply grateful to my dear friend Marc for all he has done to assist me since I helped start this website two years ago.

Now, that said. Firstly, I was wrong. I let my optimism get the best of me. I even lashed out at Jon Morosi a time or two, saying he was nuts for his predictions. Jon was right. I was fantastically wrong. We were crushed last night at all levels, most especially in the MVP voting. There is virtually no good news from last night's results for the statistical wing of baseball fans. I apologize Jon. I hope you can see fit to accept my apology.

Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on baseball given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push for expulsion of some of the BBWAA writers. Others may choose to leave baseball for good (football, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, jai alai). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under caveman rule; the Brian Kenny, grab your calculators, Baseball Abstracts, WAR-loving, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who approved of the Miguel Cabrera vote

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who supported Miguel Cabrera, or I even suspect may have anti-sabermetric leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Cabrera supporters are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other sabermetricans to do the same. Are you married to someone who supported Cabrera, have a girlfriend who voted 'M'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who were Triple Crown fetishists.

Do you work for someone who would have voted for Cabrera? Quit your job. Co-workers who would have voted for Cabrera. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who would have voted for Cabrera? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who would have voted for Cabrera? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Cabrera-loving friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Cabrera fans from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who sell Cabrera Paraphernalia

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Miguel Cabrera in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:

When I'm in line at the Sports Authority, I plan on bringing a Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown MVP shirt to the register. I will make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "Triple Crown, what is that for?" She will inevitably say, "It's the guy who leads in the three major statistical categories." I will respond, "Oh, you mean dinosaur stats? Great. I think for a living. I use my brain to examine a problem critically, requiring evidence for my claims." And will I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other sabermetricians will eventually join me.

What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "MIGUEL CABRERA IS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DARK AGES." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every ballpark or sporting goods store that sells Cabrera merchandise. I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "CABRERA IS FOR DINOSAURS WHO NEED TO RETIRE," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Cabrera supporter in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Cabrera supporters. You all are old-school pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Miguel Cabrera fans are Old-School Pigs," or "Old-school stats steal from right-thinking Americans," "Only Nazis support Triple Crown Stats" or "Making fun of WAR?: Evidence-o-phobes go **** Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the Triple Crown fetishists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Rob informed and he can report on my activities here at BN.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who would have voted for Cabrera to "**** off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball *************." Wish me luck!
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/15/3651 … dd-comment

Last edited by Jay (2012-11-15 16:32:39)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6640

Jay wrote:

massive wall o' text

bbbbblllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhThis may be my last post here at Baseball Nation for quite some time, possibly forever. I had a long discussion with my friend Rob "Cool Guy" Neyer last night. He has agreed, tentatively to take over this website. I cannot think of a better person to run things. He has a good head on his shoulders. He has the absolute right ideology, a Bill James Sabermetrician who recognizes the evils of traditional baseball analysis, and supports a strong analytical foundation, defense of statistics, and of course, our personal rights to make fun of the dinosaurs in the BBWAA. Please give Rob all your support in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.

Marc Normandin will still be contributing of course. Rob will take great care to publish all his numerous articles, and witty commentary. I am deeply grateful to my dear friend Marc for all he has done to assist me since I helped start this website two years ago.

Now, that said. Firstly, I was wrong. I let my optimism get the best of me. I even lashed out at Jon Morosi a time or two, saying he was nuts for his predictions. Jon was right. I was fantastically wrong. We were crushed last night at all levels, most especially in the MVP voting. There is virtually no good news from last night's results for the statistical wing of baseball fans. I apologize Jon. I hope you can see fit to accept my apology.

Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on baseball given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push for expulsion of some of the BBWAA writers. Others may choose to leave baseball for good (football, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, jai alai). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under caveman rule; the Brian Kenny, grab your calculators, Baseball Abstracts, WAR-loving, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who approved of the Miguel Cabrera vote

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who supported Miguel Cabrera, or I even suspect may have anti-sabermetric leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Cabrera supporters are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other sabermetricans to do the same. Are you married to someone who supported Cabrera, have a girlfriend who voted 'M'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who were Triple Crown fetishists.

Do you work for someone who would have voted for Cabrera? Quit your job. Co-workers who would have voted for Cabrera. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who would have voted for Cabrera? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who would have voted for Cabrera? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Cabrera-loving friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Cabrera fans from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who sell Cabrera Paraphernalia

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Miguel Cabrera in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:

When I'm in line at the Sports Authority, I plan on bringing a Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown MVP shirt to the register. I will make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "Triple Crown, what is that for?" She will inevitably say, "It's the guy who leads in the three major statistical categories." I will respond, "Oh, you mean dinosaur stats? Great. I think for a living. I use my brain to examine a problem critically, requiring evidence for my claims." And will I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other sabermetricians will eventually join me.

What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "MIGUEL CABRERA IS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DARK AGES." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every ballpark or sporting goods store that sells Cabrera merchandise. I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "CABRERA IS FOR DINOSAURS WHO NEED TO RETIRE," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Cabrera supporter in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Cabrera supporters. You all are old-school pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Miguel Cabrera fans are Old-School Pigs," or "Old-school stats steal from right-thinking Americans," "Only Nazis support Triple Crown Stats" or "Making fun of WAR?: Evidence-o-phobes go **** Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the Triple Crown fetishists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Rob informed and he can report on my activities here at BN.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who would have voted for Cabrera to "**** off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball *************." Wish me luck!
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/15/3651 … dd-comment
Super cool! Thanks for posting that
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,977|6775|949

a little extremist, don't you think?  It's not the first vote to go against advanced metrics, and one of sports greatest aspects is the human factor.  The definition of MVP (or rookie of the year, Gold Glove, etc) has never been specifically defined - and that is something I like about baseball.  For this guy to express his disgust now seems well, just silly.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

a little extremist, don't you think?  It's not the first vote to go against advanced metrics, and one of sports greatest aspects is the human factor.  The definition of MVP (or rookie of the year, Gold Glove, etc) has never been specifically defined - and that is something I like about baseball.  For this guy to express his disgust now seems well, just silly.
It was satire of this: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/20 … -only.html

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6554|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Why make it so complicated? Just assign electoral college votes based on proportion to popular vote. If a state has 3 electoral college votes and candidate A wins with 51% of the vote, give them 2 of the 3. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate B earns 70% of the vote, give him 7 and 3 to the other(s). Winner take all is what makes the swing states overly important.
My proposition makes results more granular and geographically focused, I think--the candidate that got the majority in that specific congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and the two votes associated with the senators go to the overall state popular vote winner. Your proposal is a middle ground. Would still be better than the current system.
All your proposal does is assure a Republican President based on the current districting. Districts by their very nature are dynamic. They are supposed to represent a certain proportion of the population, 1 Representative for every 760,000 people or so as of the last census (which is a hideous proportion). Because people move, the districts are forced to change over time to better reflect the populace. When these changes occur, they are gerrymandered by the current ruling party in order to entrench themselves. They'll take a known Democratic or Republican population and shove it into a district where they know it will be overwhelmed.

But you know this already, you're just finding a silly way to bitch about the election results. It's like pulling up this map:

and saying that Romney should've won because more of the land mass is red instead of blue. It's too bad cows can't vote.
Go back and read all the posts a bit more. That's already been addressed. Even with the map as red as it is in a county-by-county depiction, it's unclear whether the congressional districts (even those gerrymandered) would've looked the same, since the most gerrymandered districts (and there are examples that support BOTH sides) often encompass a mix of urban and rural areas, but maintain an average population density of 760,000 or so. That means the urban population carries an equal or greater weight in numbers as the rural population for a given district. Additionally, it would make gerrymandering more of an issue than it currently is, and more people would be apt to protest the redistricting than currently do.

Your insightful assessment of my motives couldn't possibly be more wrong. But you know this already.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5501|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:


My proposition makes results more granular and geographically focused, I think--the candidate that got the majority in that specific congressional district gets that district's electoral vote, and the two votes associated with the senators go to the overall state popular vote winner. Your proposal is a middle ground. Would still be better than the current system.
All your proposal does is assure a Republican President based on the current districting. Districts by their very nature are dynamic. They are supposed to represent a certain proportion of the population, 1 Representative for every 760,000 people or so as of the last census (which is a hideous proportion). Because people move, the districts are forced to change over time to better reflect the populace. When these changes occur, they are gerrymandered by the current ruling party in order to entrench themselves. They'll take a known Democratic or Republican population and shove it into a district where they know it will be overwhelmed.

But you know this already, you're just finding a silly way to bitch about the election results. It's like pulling up this map:

and saying that Romney should've won because more of the land mass is red instead of blue. It's too bad cows can't vote.
Go back and read all the posts a bit more. That's already been addressed. Even with the map as red as it is in a county-by-county depiction, it's unclear whether the congressional districts (even those gerrymandered) would've looked the same, since the most gerrymandered districts (and there are examples that support BOTH sides) often encompass a mix of urban and rural areas, but maintain an average population density of 760,000 or so. That means the urban population carries an equal or greater weight in numbers as the rural population for a given district. Additionally, it would make gerrymandering more of an issue than it currently is, and more people would be apt to protest the redistricting than currently do.
No, sorry, with your plan you might as well have the president elected by the House.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6554|'Murka

Again. Read previous posts a bit more. And look at overall election results. There were plenty of examples of representatives/senators of one party being elected, while the state overall went for the candidate of the other party (which would give that person an extra two electoral votes under my proposal, as well).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6640

FEOS wrote:

Again. Read previous posts a bit more.
why? the election's over, the thread title is "2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama", obama won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

close the goddam thread, start a new one, now it's just QQ'ing over results.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6554|'Murka

13urnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again. Read previous posts a bit more.
why? the election's over, the thread title is "2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama", obama won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

close the goddam thread, start a new one, now it's just QQ'ing over results.
I'm not QQ'ing over results. Please point out where I've said Romney should've won.

I'm talking about presidential election process reform...which has been a moderately trending topic since the election ended (and not from Fox News, either).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6833|Tampa Bay Florida
in before close

I'll miss you, 2012 election!  Especially the GOP primaries!

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-11-15 18:08:13)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard