Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers?
The example shows the relative advantage (which you say doesn't exist) of small states to big states in the electoral college. You can do similar calculations with other small states relative to California or any other big state. (The numbers won't be as startling, though.) Candidates DON'T care about Wyomingers but that's because it's a fairly safe state for the GOP. If a close presidential race were to become competitive there, both candidates would have a strong incentive to fight over even Wyoming's 3 votes. Media there is a lot cheaper than in Los Angeles.
Electoral strategies are based on more than just raw numbers. Bush made a play for California last time but that was more to help out the local GOP and to make Gore defend a state he simply had to win than it was part of a plan to gather enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Turned out that Florida - still a big state but representing less than half of Cali's electoral votes - was the big battleground last time. Texas also has a large numbers of electoral votes but candidates aren't going to spend a lot of time there.
Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers? By contrast, CA has 10% of the electoral college, TX has 6%, NY has 6%, and FL has 5%. We know which states are the important ones from a candidate's perspective by seeing how many electoral votes they have, not how much "vote power" each individual in a state has.
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
In effect, the slight mathematical advantage given to the small states by the manner in which electoral votes are dolled out doesn't overcome the huge disadvantage they get from the way the electoral college pools votes together.
BRussell,
Please don't treat this as gospel, but I believe Bush showed how you win by picking up the small states. If I recall Bush won 30 states and Gore won 20, yet they were very close in the electoral college. Bush picked up a lot more of the smaller states while Gore went around grabbing California, New York, etc.
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
actually, all this would do is have canidates pay attention to cities and toss out all the smaller states/non urban areas. take the cities and you win.
ahh don't you just love the validity of polls taken from college campuses nationwide, and elite socialites. Ahh such a fair world. The only reason why I say this is because that class of citizen gets called on more than say 60% I would imagine of middle class americans, who simply don't take surveys anymore? heh. Yeah that and if Texas is so conservative, we've have the democrats ruled the house, for over a 150 years... seems kind of like false statistics to me. I'd like to know where you get your figures because the numbers we BUY @ work through research organizations say something blatantly different. Associated press grabs a figure it holds to be blaring for a headline, and then mops the media with it. GO AP!!! gO!!!
whats with all these europeans telling us how to run things when their economy is in worser shape than ours we have the higher productivity, and product/work. The economy can not be based upon people with lost jobs, but the amount of cash circulating people.
Please don't treat this as gospel, but I believe Bush showed how you win by picking up the small states. If I recall Bush won 30 states and Gore won 20, yet they were very close in the electoral college. Bush picked up a lot more of the smaller states while Gore went around grabbing California, New York, etc.
The only large states Bush won were Texas and Florida. The key states for Bush turned out to be West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Put enough small states together and you have big electoral results.
exactly. there's nothing to debunk unless you want to debunk math.
What BRussell said.
Its not the small states that win from this situation but the sving states which is the larger states like...tadaa...Florida and historically California.
The only large states Bush won were Texas and Florida. The key states for Bush turned out to be West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Put enough small states together and you have big electoral results.
Well, then I guess one could say the only large states Gore won were CA and NY. Both Bush and Gore each won 9 states with more than 10 electoral votes. ( link )
I agree that using the number of congressional reps as the number of electors gives the small states a small advantage. Wyoming has 0.2% of the population but gets 0.6% of the electoral votes. Yippee.
But that advantage only exists in comparison to what they would be if you just used a state's proportion of the population to determine its electoral votes, but retained the electoral college method. I'm arguing that the electoral college method itself - aggregating a state's votes together - downplays the importance of citizens in small states.
It seems to me that when they decided they weren't going to popularly elect the president, the small states recognized the disadvantage that the electoral college would give them, and so got the extra little lift from the 2 extra senate seats given to each state. But I still maintain that if there was no electoral college at all, an individual in Wyoming would be just as important as an individual in FL.
For example, Bush won NH by just a few thousand votes. But did he spend anywhere near the amount of time thinking about NH's 4 electoral votes as FL's or PA's 20+ each? No way.
Well, then I guess one could say the only large states Gore won were CA and NY.
Pennsylvania and Illinois are also large states. Both went for Gore. I am surprised, however, that Ohio only has one fewer electoral vote than Illinois. It went for Bush. So I guess Bush did have more than 2 large states in his column.
Quote:
I agree that using the number of congressional reps as the number of electors gives the small states a small advantage. Wyoming has 0.2% of the population but gets 0.6% of the electoral votes. Yippee.
The math, although not as pronounced as it is with Wyoming, consistently overrepresents smaller states and underrepresents larger ones.
Quote:
... I'm arguing that the electoral college method itself - aggregating a state's votes together - downplays the importance of citizens in small states.
Only if your vote went to the loser in that state. If you voted for the winner, your vote is magnified even more!
Quote:
... I still maintain that if there was no electoral college at all, an individual in Wyoming would be just as important as an individual in FL.
Yes they would but as it stands today the Wyoming citizen's vote carries more weight than does the Floridian's. Look at it this way. Take Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota together. The population of those states together is roughly 2.8 million. The combined electoral votes of those states is 12. Georgia has 13 electoral votes. Georgia's population is approx. 8.4 million! Georgia's population is more than twice as large but they get only one more vote in the electoral college. (source)
Its not the small states that win from this situation but the sving states which is the larger states like...tadaa...Florida and historically California.
California is not considered to be a swing state. They may have once been in play for the GOP but for a while now it's been solidly Democrat. Ditto for Texas only the trend has been the reverse.
Florida truly is a swing state. With all those elderly people dying off and a constant influx of new blood, every four years they have a dramatically new electorate. Florida can boast representatives of both parties holding statewide office. California can't. I'm pretty sure Texas also can't.
whats with all these europeans telling us how to run things when their economy is in worser shape than ours we have the higher productivity, and product/work. The economy can not be based upon people with lost jobs, but the amount of cash circulating pe
hey bud our economy is in the shitter long term. We have a trade deficit, all our stuff we buy is made in Asia and all our tech jobs are going overseas. Middle class people in manufacturing and tech prepare to go to unemployment lines. Unless we get a President that doesn't misunderestimate this issue we're in trouble.
Lowest approval rating for Bush since January 2001. Only 40% want Bush re-selected while 47% want a Democrat. Dean leads the pack with 16% but is statically tied with Kerry.
Lowest approval rating for Bush since January 2001. Only 40% want Bush re-selected while 47% want a Democrat. Dean leads the pack with 16% but is statically tied with Kerry.
Keep dreaming, hoping and whatever else it is that you do.
It's pretty hard to argue that Bush's approval ratings haven't gone down since the beginning of the war in Iraq. You can argue on specific points but I don't think it's possible to somehow prove that his approval rating has gone up. How do you plan on doing this, SDW? Maybe you should take a few cues from the big men in office right now, they're pretty good at deceiving the general public.
I think it's going to be really close. The US is basically split down the middle with Bush, the war, the economy, etc. Bush is even more polarizing than Clinton, which should be no surprise given the current state of affairs. I think events or lack of them at the 11th hour will swing independent voters one way or the other, and it'll still be close. I'm skeptical that Bush will effectively scare people into voting for him. If the Republicans do try that, it could very well backfire. It depends on the execution.
As usual, I don't really like anyone in the running, though I might cozy up to one of the Democratic candidates more as time goes on, and I get to know them better. I really haven't been paying attention to the democratic peanut gallery yet. In any case, I'll probably end up voting for a Democrat unless the candidate reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter. In that case, I won't vote.
PS: there's nothing to get, it's my opinion, just like you have yours.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers?
The example shows the relative advantage (which you say doesn't exist) of small states to big states in the electoral college. You can do similar calculations with other small states relative to California or any other big state. (The numbers won't be as startling, though.) Candidates DON'T care about Wyomingers but that's because it's a fairly safe state for the GOP. If a close presidential race were to become competitive there, both candidates would have a strong incentive to fight over even Wyoming's 3 votes. Media there is a lot cheaper than in Los Angeles.
Electoral strategies are based on more than just raw numbers. Bush made a play for California last time but that was more to help out the local GOP and to make Gore defend a state he simply had to win than it was part of a plan to gather enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Turned out that Florida - still a big state but representing less than half of Cali's electoral votes - was the big battleground last time. Texas also has a large numbers of electoral votes but candidates aren't going to spend a lot of time there.
Originally posted by BRussell
Right, but those Wyoming votes aren't counted separately. They're pooled together into a whopping 0.6% of the electoral votes. Why should a candidate ever go there or care what happens to Wyomingers? By contrast, CA has 10% of the electoral college, TX has 6%, NY has 6%, and FL has 5%. We know which states are the important ones from a candidate's perspective by seeing how many electoral votes they have, not how much "vote power" each individual in a state has.
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
In effect, the slight mathematical advantage given to the small states by the manner in which electoral votes are dolled out doesn't overcome the huge disadvantage they get from the way the electoral college pools votes together.
BRussell,
Please don't treat this as gospel, but I believe Bush showed how you win by picking up the small states. If I recall Bush won 30 states and Gore won 20, yet they were very close in the electoral college. Bush picked up a lot more of the smaller states while Gore went around grabbing California, New York, etc.
Nick
If each individual counted separately rather than being pooled with electors, a candidate would care just as much about what happened to a Wyominger as a Californian. But the pooled nature of the current electoral system means candidates don't give a rip about Wyomingers, and treat Californians (and more generally, the large states with close poll numbers) like Gods. If Wyoming had been as close as FL in 2000, do you think anyone would have cared?
actually, all this would do is have canidates pay attention to cities and toss out all the smaller states/non urban areas. take the cities and you win.
whats with all these europeans telling us how to run things when their economy is in worser shape than ours
Originally posted by trumptman
Please don't treat this as gospel, but I believe Bush showed how you win by picking up the small states. If I recall Bush won 30 states and Gore won 20, yet they were very close in the electoral college. Bush picked up a lot more of the smaller states while Gore went around grabbing California, New York, etc.
The only large states Bush won were Texas and Florida. The key states for Bush turned out to be West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Put enough small states together and you have big electoral results.
Originally posted by Longhorn
exactly. there's nothing to debunk unless you want to debunk math.
What BRussell said.
Its not the small states that win from this situation but the sving states which is the larger states like...tadaa...Florida and historically California.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The only large states Bush won were Texas and Florida. The key states for Bush turned out to be West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas. Put enough small states together and you have big electoral results.
Well, then I guess one could say the only large states Gore won were CA and NY. Both Bush and Gore each won 9 states with more than 10 electoral votes. ( link )
I agree that using the number of congressional reps as the number of electors gives the small states a small advantage. Wyoming has 0.2% of the population but gets 0.6% of the electoral votes. Yippee.
But that advantage only exists in comparison to what they would be if you just used a state's proportion of the population to determine its electoral votes, but retained the electoral college method. I'm arguing that the electoral college method itself - aggregating a state's votes together - downplays the importance of citizens in small states.
It seems to me that when they decided they weren't going to popularly elect the president, the small states recognized the disadvantage that the electoral college would give them, and so got the extra little lift from the 2 extra senate seats given to each state. But I still maintain that if there was no electoral college at all, an individual in Wyoming would be just as important as an individual in FL.
For example, Bush won NH by just a few thousand votes. But did he spend anywhere near the amount of time thinking about NH's 4 electoral votes as FL's or PA's 20+ each? No way.
Originally posted by BRussell
Well, then I guess one could say the only large states Gore won were CA and NY.
Pennsylvania and Illinois are also large states. Both went for Gore. I am surprised, however, that Ohio only has one fewer electoral vote than Illinois. It went for Bush. So I guess Bush did have more than 2 large states in his column.
I agree that using the number of congressional reps as the number of electors gives the small states a small advantage. Wyoming has 0.2% of the population but gets 0.6% of the electoral votes. Yippee.
The math, although not as pronounced as it is with Wyoming, consistently overrepresents smaller states and underrepresents larger ones.
... I'm arguing that the electoral college method itself - aggregating a state's votes together - downplays the importance of citizens in small states.
Only if your vote went to the loser in that state. If you voted for the winner, your vote is magnified even more!
... I still maintain that if there was no electoral college at all, an individual in Wyoming would be just as important as an individual in FL.
Yes they would but as it stands today the Wyoming citizen's vote carries more weight than does the Floridian's. Look at it this way. Take Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota together. The population of those states together is roughly 2.8 million. The combined electoral votes of those states is 12. Georgia has 13 electoral votes. Georgia's population is approx. 8.4 million! Georgia's population is more than twice as large but they get only one more vote in the electoral college. (source)
(edited to add some data at the end of my post)
Originally posted by Anders
What BRussell said.
Its not the small states that win from this situation but the sving states which is the larger states like...tadaa...Florida and historically California.
California is not considered to be a swing state. They may have once been in play for the GOP but for a while now it's been solidly Democrat. Ditto for Texas only the trend has been the reverse.
Florida truly is a swing state. With all those elderly people dying off and a constant influx of new blood, every four years they have a dramatically new electorate. Florida can boast representatives of both parties holding statewide office. California can't. I'm pretty sure Texas also can't.
whats with all these europeans telling us how to run things when their economy is in worser shape than ours we have the higher productivity, and product/work. The economy can not be based upon people with lost jobs, but the amount of cash circulating pe
hey bud our economy is in the shitter long term. We have a trade deficit, all our stuff we buy is made in Asia and all our tech jobs are going overseas. Middle class people in manufacturing and tech prepare to go to unemployment lines. Unless we get a President that doesn't misunderestimate this issue we're in trouble.
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
Yeah, but that's all he's got
Ain't that the truth.
Lowest approval rating for Bush since January 2001. Only 40% want Bush re-selected while 47% want a Democrat. Dean leads the pack with 16% but is statically tied with Kerry.
Originally posted by Existence
New poll numbers.
Lowest approval rating for Bush since January 2001. Only 40% want Bush re-selected while 47% want a Democrat. Dean leads the pack with 16% but is statically tied with Kerry.
Keep dreaming, hoping and whatever else it is that you do.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Keep dreaming, hoping and whatever else it is that you do.
And you keep on in denial.
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
Out The Door In 2004!
PS. I know this is a repeat but you just don't seem to get it.
As usual, I don't really like anyone in the running, though I might cozy up to one of the Democratic candidates more as time goes on, and I get to know them better. I really haven't been paying attention to the democratic peanut gallery yet. In any case, I'll probably end up voting for a Democrat unless the candidate reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter. In that case, I won't vote.
PS: there's nothing to get, it's my opinion, just like you have yours.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What a riot you guys are. You still don't get it: The election is 14 months away.
And look at what "good" can happen in 14 months! Nothing's set in stone.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What a riot you guys are. You still don't get it: The election is 14 months away. Personally, I think Karl Rove is laughing his ass off right now.
No it's you who are wrong SDW. The begining is just 5 months away.
This recent plea for money to help his screw up in Iraq is going to make people want to vote for Bush right?