Well Florida did it again

[Weird Harold]

Well, I did... see the attached

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/graphic/0,5543,393512,00.html

(please pardon the Blue/Red reversal on this chart, it is British....)

Look closely... For this chart, each state is sized according to the number of electoral votes....

I had hoped you'd turn up this graphic: and the associated graphics from Princeton's ongoing study of voting patterns.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/elections/Multiyear3small.gif
Click for a HUGE, zoomable version where you can se the difference between rural and urban voting patterns.

...as noted above, "dense urban center" states DID go to Bush, and small states DID go to Gore. Are there regional differences? Of course there are.... but they are transitory and dynamic.

There is a difference between "high population states" and "dense urban centers" -- Texas is a high population state, but it has 24% of NY's population density and 35% of California's -- plus, Al Gor is the only candidate I know of who didn't win his home state because of the "favorite son" effect.

Harold.... you are in the wrong century.... That "war" ended a long time ago.

Watch the animated map change colors -- zoom in on California and watch the blue coagulate along the coast and the red spread over the rest of the state and ask yourself if the urban/rural "war is over. Check out Texas, New York, or any other state and watch the urban centers turn Blue and the rural areas turn Red.

I am sorry, but the great Mid-west is no longer a bucolic agrarian society kept to heel by the Big Industrial states.. Hell, the "farms" are the main "factories" now, in case you hadn't noticed. The vast majority of Americans do not work on either farms or factories... those jobs ...are going away. And will continue to do so….

Farmers and Factory Workers may not exactly correspond to the occupations of city dewllers, but the dichotomy of "Independent Self-sufficient Loners" vs "Socialist Union Sympathizers" still exists -- just look at the maps closely; rural and urban tend to vote opposite sides in presidential elections. (Even in "Landslide" elections the rural vote is tepidly contrary to urban enthusiasm.

I could use other labels to stereotype the dichotomy -- "Hard Workers" vs "Welfare Leeches" would probably start an entirely off-topic diversion, but it IS a large part of the viewpoint of rural/small state conservatives.

Anyway.... I give up... not because I do not enjoy discussing this with you, I do... (it's fun to discuss shit like this, particularly if one is "right") but this has gone way too long has evidenced by the fact it is only you and talking.

That rotten California Socialist, Boxlicker, p) is still hanging in there with us and others are watching if not participating.

But just for the record... The "electoral college" system WILL fuck us up... and probably sooner rather than later. Hell it already has.

The Electoral College has only "fucked us up" if you cling to the illusion that the US is in any way a "Direct Democracy" -- it is NOT and the Electoral College is just one instituion the Founding Fathers created to keep it from becoming a direct democracy. I didn't invent that "Tyranny of the Masses" phrase; I believe it was either T. Jefferson or B. Franklin who first used it in connection with the structure of the US Government.

There are some interesting graphics, including 3D versions of the "Purple States" map here: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Note the colors of the tallest peaks (highest population densities):

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/3d_lowangle.gif

 

[keeblercrumb]

I had hoped you'd turn up this graphic: and the associated graphics from Princeton's ongoing study of voting patterns.
...
There is a difference between "high population states" and "dense urban centers" -- Texas is a high population state, but it has 24% of NY's population density and 35% of California's -- plus, Al Gor is the only candidate I know of who didn't win his home state because of the "favorite son" effect.
.....
Watch the animated map change colors -- zoom in on California and watch the blue coagulate along the coast and the red spread over the rest of the state and ask yourself if the urban/rural "war is over. Check out Texas, New York, or any other state and watch the urban centers turn Blue and the rural areas turn Red.

........

Farmers and Factory Workers may not exactly correspond to the occupations of city dewllers, but the dichotomy of "Independent Self-sufficient Loners" vs "Socialist Union Sympathizers" still exists -- just look at the maps closely; rural and urban tend to vote opposite sides in presidential elections. (Even in "Landslide" elections the rural vote is tepidly contrary to urban enthusiasm.

I could use other labels to stereotype the dichotomy -- "Hard Workers" vs "Welfare Leeches" would probably start an entirely off-topic diversion, but it IS a large part of the viewpoint of rural/small state conservatives.

The Electoral College has only "fucked us up" if you cling to the illusion that the US is in any way a "Direct Democracy" -- it is NOT and the Electoral College is just one instituion the Founding Fathers created to keep it from becoming a direct democracy. I didn't invent that "Tyranny of the Masses" phrase; I believe it was either T. Jefferson or B. Franklin who first used it in connection with the structure of the US Government.
....

There are some interesting graphics, including 3D versions of the "Purple States" map here:
Note the colors of the tallest peaks (highest population densities)

Well H, your graphics kicked the shit outa mine... that's for sure... Gotta love those coagulating maps....

But uhhhhhh When did we start talking about population density and WTF does that have to do with the Electoral College??? Exactly nothing.

Let's back up a minute... You were asserting that the poor little blue states were "favored" under the current absurdity because their piddly 3 votes represented fewer actual votes (votes per elector) than the proportionate amount of electors from the big states....

But, Harold, I think I demonstrated quite clearly that the "winner take all" rules in the big states more than negates this intent...(if it was the intent)

Under the CURRENT reality, the campaign is won or lost in the 11 biggest (population) states. Period. Why? BECAUSE OF "winner take all"!!!!

How many different ways can I say it? Under the CURRENT system, the candidates can (and do) focus their resources on the 11 biggest states and fuck the rest.

This protecting the little state bullshit because of the minimum number of electors rule, is just that... bullshit. Counting the District of Columbia, there are exactly 8 states which get 3 votes... The number which fall under the "minimum" rule is even less. But in total, they represent 24 whopping electors.. less than the State of Florida by itself... Oh... by the way.... YOUR STATE is not one of the "benefactors" of the minimum rule! Nevada got its electors the old fashion way... it earned them by the size of it’s population.

By the way, since you are fond of inserting irrelevant asides… Gore won three of the eight “small” states but he could have won all of them and it would not have made a shred of difference.

The "minimum rule" itself is owed to the minimum of One vote in the House and Two Senators.... and congress is where your "concerns" were and are intended to be redressed.. If there was this big vs. small concern in the rational for the Electoral system, the Big States certainly thwarted it with the "Winner takes all" .

We are not talking about class warfare or socialist vs. pioneers or whatever your fantasy is here.... We are talking about the stupid Electoral College system for electing the President.

It heavily favors the most populous states (regardless of their density)... Speaking of being dense... no, I will not give in to that impulse, even if it is richly deserved.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss your preposterous self-made loner vs. the socialist union factory worker fictitious stereotypes, it has nothing to do with this subject... or reality.

As for clinging to my beliefs, I DO believe that the Presidential election SHOULD be a direct democracy and it is not that now. Now.... it is something else.. "silly" comes to mind. Call me a radical..... and I know this democracy stuff is troubling to you, but there it is. I think we should change it. It serves nobody and no purpose other than to make the process needlessly risky.

-KC

 

[neonlyte]

I had hoped you'd turn up this graphic: and the associated graphics from Princeton's ongoing study of voting patterns.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/elections/Multiyear3small.gif
Click for a HUGE, zoomable version where you can se the difference between rural and urban voting patterns.

This map always throws me. In UK, the Labour Party (Democrats) are Red, and the Conservative Party (Republican) are Blue. But it seems we both share Yellow Liberals

 

[keeblercrumb]

This map always throws me. In UK, the Labour Party (Democrats) are Red, and the Conservative Party (Republican) are Blue. But it seems we both share Yellow Liberals

Yeah... but do your maps coagulate???

-KC

 

[Boxlicker101]

The map and other graphic are interesting, but the map flickers too fast to really get a fix on it. I wonder abut the city density graphic also. Los Angeles has a big pop. but it is not really all that dense. The city also has a big area, with the denizens spead out. I believe Chicago is more dense than it shows.

As I recall, McGovern also failed to carry his home state of South Dakota in 1972, which was the greatest landslide in US history. I think McG. caried only DC and MA.

I am not a Socialist. I consider Socialism to be a way to destroy the economy and the overall welfare of an industrius people.

I'm not going to change my mind about the Eletoral College, although I can see certain pluses about it.

 

[Weird Harold]

This map always throws me. In UK, the Labour Party (Democrats) are Red, and the Conservative Party (Republican) are Blue. But it seems we both share Yellow Liberals

The real import of that map (and the others) is not which color is conservative or liberal, but where the colors concentrate and where they mix to make purple.

I'm sure that a similar map for any country that mixed the colors by vote percentages at the precinct level would show the same kind of shading.

 

[Weird Harold]

The map and other graphic are interesting, but the map flickers too fast to really get a fix on it.

Follow the links, there are still images of every frame of the animation so you can zoom in and study the maps in detail.

I wonder abut the city density graphic also. Los Angeles has a big pop. but it is not really all that dense. The city also has a big area, with the denizens spead out. I believe Chicago is more dense than it shows.

The 3D map isn't "city density" it's "precinct density;" but either way it is based on US census data and USGS maps -- the number of people and the number of square miles are kind of difficult to put a spin on to manipulate the height of the graphics.

As I recall, McGovern also failed to carry his home state of South Dakota in 1972, which was the greatest landslide in US history. I think McG. carried only DC and MA.

Could be. It's NOT something that happens very often.

I am not a Socialist. I consider Socialism to be a way to destroy the economy and the overall welfare of an industrius people.

I know you're not a Socialist, but you are a Californian and to an outsider, the two appear to be indistinguishable.

I'm not going to change my mind about the Electoral College, although I can see certain pluses about it.

That's more than most advocates of a direct election can manage.

 

[Weird Harold]

Let's back up a minute... You were asserting that the poor little blue states were "favored" under the current absurdity because their piddly 3 votes represented fewer actual votes (votes per elector) than the proportionate amount of electors from the big states....

Can you refute the point that the loss of the two territorial votes would reduce the influence of small states more than it would reduce the (already excessive) populaous states?

But, Harold, I think I demonstrated quite clearly that the "winner take all" rules in the big states more than negates this intent...(if it was the intent)

Under the CURRENT reality, the campaign is won or lost in the 11 biggest (population) states. Period. Why? BECAUSE OF "winner take all"!!!!

If the top eleven states voted as a unanimous block you'd have a point. They don't and seldom have voted as block and never when the rest of the country was divided. Landslides, Like McGovern's spectacular loss in 1972 aren't all that common -- even in the post-TV era covered by the animated map.

How many different ways can I say it? Under the CURRENT system, the candidates can (and do) focus their resources on the 11 biggest states and fuck the rest.

Why then has (southern) Nevada been visited by most of the contenders and why is (was) our TV service flooded with political advertisements specifically directed at our caucuses last month? After the national conventions, if past election years hold true, we'll see four or five visits from the candidates, ten or fifteen visits from prominent supporters, a several million dollars worth of regional specific TV advertising.

All for four measly little electoral votes.

True, we don't get the visitations or advertising money that more populous regions do, but we are NOT ignored.

This protecting the little state bullshit because of the minimum number of electors rule, is just that... bullshit. Counting the District of Columbia, there are exactly 8 states which get 3 votes... The number which fall under the "minimum" rule is even less. But in total, they represent 24 whopping electors.. less than the State of Florida by itself... Oh... by the way.... YOUR STATE is not one of the "benefactors" of the minimum rule! Nevada got its electors the old fashion way... it earned them by the size of it’s population.

We got ONE Electoral vote because of increased population -- that is 25% of our vote. The other 75% are the "minimum votes" that every state has. Nevada would not suffer as badly as Wyoming, DC, and the other "minimum states" but we would suffer proportionatately more than the big states.

It is NOT the minimum single reperesentative vote that offsets high population influence, it is the two territorial votes.

102/538 (18.9%) Electoral votes are independent of population considerations and even the largest state only controls 1.9% of those votes.

The "minimum rule" itself is owed to the minimum of One vote in the House and Two Senators.... and congress is where your "concerns" were and are intended to be redressed.. If there was this big vs. small concern in the rational for the Electoral system, the Big States certainly thwarted it with the "Winner takes all."

Each State has exactly the same influence on the Executive Branch under the Electoral College as it has on the makeup of the Legislative Branch. And "Winner Takes All" is inherent in the concept that the STATES are electing the President and not the "People." The proportional distribution of Electors is a multiplier of each state's Influence, not a factional divisor.

We are not talking about class warfare or socialist vs. pioneers or whatever your fantasy is here.... We are talking about the stupid Electoral College system for electing the President. It heavily favors the most populous states (regardless of their density)...

An Electoral Collge which exists because of "urban vs rural" conflicts -- which the "purple states" maps clearly show still exists. But more we're talking about the difference between the States vs the individual Populations of the States, and the maps also show that there is still a division of interests between densely populous states and sparsely populated states The greater the differences in the poplulation density, the greater the division of interests -- The other maps a Princeton.edu show the same kind of dense vs sparse division in voting for congress-critters

Start a new thread if you want to discuss your preposterous self-made loner vs. the socialist union factory worker fictitious stereotypes, it has nothing to do with this subject... or reality.

Look at Princeton's graphics and tell me that there is no division along urban/rural lines -- the same kind of division that prompted the makeup of the Electoral College.

However you want to characterize the reason for the effect, there is clearly a difference of opinion between dense urban populations and sparse rural populations. That difference of opinion also divides along "Liberal" and "Conservative" lines.

I know this democracy stuff is troubling to you, but there it is. I think we should change it. It serves nobody and no purpose other than to make the process needlessly risky.

Democracy isn't troubling to me personally, but it was clearly troubling to the Founding Fathers -- there was remarkably little support for a direct popular election among the Framers, the major debate was over how MUCH population should dirve a state's vote multpliers and how to give the small states a bigger voice.

My support for the Electoral College isn't anti-democracy but pro-Republic -- the structure designed by the Founding Fathers has done what it was designed to do for 220 years and 55 Elections, so I see no reason to "fix what ain't broke."

The perception that the Electoral College IS broken comes from a lack of understanding about what the Framers of the Constitution intended for it to do -- or more precisely what it is intended to prevent; a President exclusively favoring the urban centers over the rural states.

If the Electoral College is broken, it is in exactly the opposite direction of elimination; The original proportions were 26/65 (40%) Territorial votes and a spread of 1 representative vote each to the smallest two states and 10 votes to the largest state (a ratio of 1:10).

If the dominance of the populous states because they have bigger vote multipliers is an indication that thhe Electoral College is broken, how does giving them even MORE influence via direct popular vote solve the problem.

You claim that the "Winner Take All" amplifies the influence of the large states but ignore the fact that winner-take-all also amplifies the small states influence.

Whatever change is made to the Electoral college that eliminates the "Territorial Votes" reduces the influence of the small states and increases the influence of densely populated urban areas (which tend to vote closer to unanimously than less dense areas.)

If anything needs to be done, it is to increase the Territorial votes back to (or at least closer to) 40% of the Electoral College and the representative votes back to (or closer to) the original 1:10 ratio from smallest to largest.

That's as hopeless a proposal as eliminating the Electoral College is for much of the same reasons -- except the large states would be the ones crying about losing their influence and blocking an ammendment or ratification.

There is some hope that the 1:53 ratio might be reduced -- it has been twice(?) before by changing the Population/Representative number. I haven't looked up the specifics in years, but IIRC, under the original ratio, we'd have closer to a Thousand Representatives in the HoR than a mere 437.