Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:18:12 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
>the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
>you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
>going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
>the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
>replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
>worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
>possible to anticipate).

Sorry, Bill, it's a simple solution with little time needed to debate
or implement. Tally the votes like they do now, submit the total
like they do now, add them up instead of applying the margins to
the electoral votes. All done.

Bob
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:21:26 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is not
>to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar to
>the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
>perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
>loose one. Hope that helps.

Stop dancing. One person, one vote, all done.

Bob


 
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:47:59 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>With that method, my vote, and the votes of millions of Americans living in
>rural areas, will not count. All Presidents would be selected by the several
>major cities. Fair? Not even close.

So it's fairer to allow particular states to control who becomes
President ? Your argument is laughable.

>You try hard to argue your side, but in my opinion you are wrong on ever
>point you've made in this thread, and I disagree with your conclusions as
>well.

So you're a neo-conservative, support no matter who's in office as
long as he's a Republican. Who cares.

Bob
 
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:53:28 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>With a true popular vote system
>like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high population
>20%.


You seem to have a problem with simplicity. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
That makes all votes equal. Duh.

Bob
 
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:01:32 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Here is one map, not the one I had, but it shows why your popular vote idea
>won't work. Ignoring all rural areas, which are normally Republican, just to
>assure your Democrats will win every election would, I am sure, start an
>uprising to dwarf the Civil war.
>http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/countymap.htm


Who cares about a map ? Every person in the USA deserves an equal
share of the vote for President. It doesn't matter if it's a city
vote or a country vote. Every vote counts equally. This has nothing
to do with Republicans or Democrats. It has to do with equal weight
for _every_ vote in _every_ town, city, and state.

Bob


 
'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:21:26 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is not
>>to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar to
>>the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
>>perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
>>loose one. Hope that helps.
>
>
> Stop dancing. One person, one vote, all done.
>
> Bob

One man, one vote - never has been that way! For example,
senators represent states, not population.

You are free to try to get the rules of the game changed,
but until then, play by the rules and let up on the whining. - RM


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:47:59 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With that method, my vote, and the votes of millions of Americans living
in
> >rural areas, will not count. All Presidents would be selected by the
several
> >major cities. Fair? Not even close.
>
> So it's fairer to allow particular states to control who becomes
> President ? Your argument is laughable.
>

That is exactly what you are trying to do. Your total lack of comprehension
is laughable. You demonstrate a total ignorance of the entire electoral
system.

> >You try hard to argue your side, but in my opinion you are wrong on ever
> >point you've made in this thread, and I disagree with your conclusions as
> >well.
>
> So you're a neo-conservative, support no matter who's in office as
> long as he's a Republican. Who cares.
>
> Bob

I support whoever I feel will do the best job, I don't care if it's a Dem,
Rep. or independent.
In case you care, I'm a registered Democrat, I voted against Gore solely
because of his anti-gun stance.
I opposed Clinton because 1: his socialist healthcare "reform" which would
have destroyed the finest healthcare in the world.
2: He has no Morals, no guts, and no intelligence. A dead chimp would have
made a better President than Clinton.


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:21:26 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is
not
> >to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar
to
> >the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
> >perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
> >loose one. Hope that helps.
>
> Stop dancing. One person, one vote, all done.
>
> Bob

That is what we have now.
Your way, picture this.
Imaginary country. 60% of the population lives in one state. They all vote
the same. Whoever they vote for wins every time.
Now, since theirs are the only votes that matter, whoever is elected will
pander to their interests. They pay fewer taxes, get the bulk of the
payouts, anything they want, whatever it takes to keep their vote.
Meanwhile, the 40% of the people who live in the other 49 states pay the
lions share of taxes and get nothing in return, since they don't have enough
votes between them to affect the election, no one cares what they want or
need.
In the real world, the cowboy in Wyoming should have an equal chance of
seeing someone elected who will help him and his state as a yuppie in New
York or LA. That is what the Electoral system does, that is what your
popular vote would take away.
If you can't see that I suggest you do some major research into the
electoral system, and why it exists, because you are major league deluding
yourself here, regardless of what insults you decide to use to deny it.


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:01:32 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Here is one map, not the one I had, but it shows why your popular vote
idea
> >won't work. Ignoring all rural areas, which are normally Republican, just
to
> >assure your Democrats will win every election would, I am sure, start an
> >uprising to dwarf the Civil war.
> >http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/countymap.htm
>
>
> Who cares about a map ?

That statement right there is why you are completly ignorant about the
entire subject.
You don't have a clue what would happen if you got your wish, and you don't
care. You are a child throwing a tantrum who refuses to listen to reason,
and I'm througfh with you. Come back when you learn you don't know it all.


Every person in the USA deserves an equal
> share of the vote for President. It doesn't matter if it's a city
> vote or a country vote. Every vote counts equally. This has nothing
> to do with Republicans or Democrats. It has to do with equal weight
> for _every_ vote in _every_ town, city, and state.
>
> Bob
>
>


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:53:28 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With a true popular vote system
> >like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high
population
> >20%.
>
>
> You seem to have a problem with simplicity. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
> That makes all votes equal. Duh.
>
> Bob

Your so simple minded reason escapes you. There is far more involved here
than just votes, there is the little matter of EVERYONE is expected to
SUPPORT the government, but with the popular vote, ONLY those red areas on
the map I posted would BENIFIT because the government would have NO
INCENTIVE to provide those areas with SERVICES, because THEIR VOTES WOULDN"T
COUNT. Sheesh, you really are dense.


 
'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:18:12 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
> >the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
> >you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
> >going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
> >the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
> >replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
> >worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
> >possible to anticipate).
>
> Sorry, Bill, it's a simple solution with little time needed to debate
> or implement. Tally the votes like they do now, submit the total
> like they do now, add them up instead of applying the margins to
> the electoral votes. All done.
>
> Bob

And if there's a recount, how long does that take, how much does that
cost, what if 100,000 votes burn up in a fire or otherwise get lost.
With the electoral system, those burned up 100k missing votes would be
less likely to create a problem (except in an extremely tight election -
in fact - I think that's where any sysem has the potential to break down
- but some are more prone to it than others. It seems to me that the
electoral college system is the least sensitive to polarizing the
country and delaying the results than, say, a pure popular vote system).

Can we agree that the 2000 election was a once in a century anomaly?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 'nuther Bob wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:18:12 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
> > >the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
> > >you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
> > >going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
> > >the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
> > >replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
> > >worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
> > >possible to anticipate).
> >
> > Sorry, Bill, it's a simple solution with little time needed to debate
> > or implement. Tally the votes like they do now, submit the total
> > like they do now, add them up instead of applying the margins to
> > the electoral votes. All done.
> >
> > Bob
>
> And if there's a recount, how long does that take, how much does that
> cost, what if 100,000 votes burn up in a fire or otherwise get lost.
> With the electoral system, those burned up 100k missing votes would be
> less likely to create a problem (except in an extremely tight election -
> in fact - I think that's where any sysem has the potential to break down
> - but some are more prone to it than others. It seems to me that the
> electoral college system is the least sensitive to polarizing the
> country and delaying the results than, say, a pure popular vote system).

Pretty obvious Bob hasn't put much thought into it.
Shame really, but a popular vote just won't work in a country as large and
diverse as the USA.

>
> Can we agree that the 2000 election was a once in a century anomaly?

Unless Gore runs again, 'eh? ;-)

>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


 
Douglas A. Shrader wrote:

> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:53:28 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With a true popular vote system
>>>like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high
>
> population
>
>>>20%.
>>
>>
>>You seem to have a problem with simplicity. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
>>That makes all votes equal. Duh.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> Your so simple minded reason escapes you. There is far more involved here
> than just votes, there is the little matter of EVERYONE is expected to
> SUPPORT the government, but with the popular vote, ONLY those red areas on
> the map I posted would BENIFIT because the government would have NO
> INCENTIVE to provide those areas with SERVICES, because THEIR VOTES WOULDN"T
> COUNT. Sheesh, you really are dense.

Hey Doug, do what you said you would do and stop replying to the Bob! - RM

 
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:53:28 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >With a true popular vote system
>> >like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high
>population
>> >20%.
>>
>>
>> You seem to have a problem with simplicity. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
>> That makes all votes equal. Duh.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Your so simple minded reason escapes you. There is far more involved here
>than just votes, there is the little matter of EVERYONE is expected to
>SUPPORT the government, but with the popular vote, ONLY those red areas on
>the map I posted would BENIFIT because the government would have NO
>INCENTIVE to provide those areas with SERVICES, because THEIR VOTES WOULDN"T
>COUNT. Sheesh, you really are dense.
>
So you support a system designed to dilute the voice of the majority in
order to promote the minority. The drain is from the cities to the
country. Is that better?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>This means that Bush, at the top,
>statistically received 50% LESS votes for him that were intended for
>someone else.

Nope. The error would be less because they can't select the person above.
I would assert (without proof) that any "lost in the middle" selection
errors are much less (if they exist) for those on the ends. I leave it up
to you to dismiss my claim out of hand, since it doesn't support the
conclusion that you are trying to find reasons (however false) that support
it.

>Gore in the middle received as many erroneous votes as
>he lost.

Are you purposefully playing dumb, or is it not an act? I've explained
multiple times that "random" errors affect those with the greatest number
of votes more than those with less.

I'll do the math for you one more time, since you are obviously incapable
of independent thought (and that explains your choice of parties).

If the person above Gore would receive 2% of the popular, the person below
Gore is 2%, and Gore would get 50%, if 10% of the people mistakenly pick
the person above or below, it will affect Gore more than the others.

In this case, the 2/50/2 would become 4.3/45.4/4.3

And again, I'm not arguing that this did or did not happen, but that you
are grossly mistaken about the math and general concepts behind the
arguments. It is much easier to prove the opposition wrong when you don't
even manage to get their claim right...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
>popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate of
>individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
>national popular vote.

Could you please explain how the sum of all state votes (done at the same
time in a manner consistent with the current "nation-wide" votes on
presidential election day) would differ significantly from a single
nation-wide vote?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:20:41 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
>>>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>>>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>>>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>>>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>>>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
>>>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
>>>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>>
>>That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
>>the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
>>as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
>>concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
>>irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
>>system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
>
>No, you are just an idiot. The electoral college votes are based on
>population in each state. Thus voters are treated equally.

All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection of
the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't "equally"
as far as I can tell.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:04:14 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
>the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
>populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection of
>the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't "equally"
>as far as I can tell.

I'll only respond to one of your posts Marc and none of theirs
regarding this issue since their arguments hold no weight at all.

It's obvious that these folks are simply arguing for the electoral
college in some mistaken impression that "their" candidate will
have some advantage under the electoral system. I guess they missed
the part of the history lesson where we learned how few times there
has even been a difference in the popular vote vs. the electoral
college.

"One man, one vote" is the only fair system. They are more
interested in preserving some relic that they mistakenly think
benefits them in some odd way.

Bob
 
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 17:10:04 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I support whoever I feel will do the best job, I don't care if it's a Dem,
>Rep. or independent.
>In case you care, I'm a registered Democrat, I voted against Gore solely
>because of his anti-gun stance.
>I opposed Clinton because 1: his socialist healthcare "reform" which would
>have destroyed the finest healthcare in the world.
>2: He has no Morals, no guts, and no intelligence. A dead chimp would have
>made a better President than Clinton.

Let's see, all your positions are Republican but you are a registered
Democrat. Uh huh. Your credibility is about as good as Bush II.

BTW - you already pay for health care for everyone. The State and
Federal governments pick up the cost of health care for anyone who
needs it - or the hospital passes the cost onto other users. That
cost gets funneled into their charges for paying patients, which means
that it gets funneled into the cost of private insurance. You and I
pay for the private insurance. What do you think happens when someone
shows up at a hospital who needs care ? They take care of them. The
only difference is that those without insurance wait until the problem
is chronic and then it costs even more to care for them. BTW -
Hospitals are getting squeezed and going out of business left and
right under the current system - that doesn;t do much for the system
with the "best health care in the world".

Do you have any idea how much health insurance costs an employer in
this country ? I suspect that your employer picks it up and you go
merrily along chatting about how wonderful it is to only pay $5
for a doctor's visit - like there's some sort of free lunch.
Meanwhile your employer pays $9K per employee for insurance each year.
Try starting your own business and picking up that cost out of your
own pocket - we'll see how you feel about this inverse tax then.

Health insurance is already a major drain on individual businesses
and the economy. The only ones happy about the situation, and in dire
need of preserving the status quo, are the insurance companies.
But go ahead, believe the nonsense that the insurance industry spouts
as a scare tactic to keep their business secure. Lots of psychologists
are depending on you to preserve their theories about how easy it
is to brainwash the masses with a simple disinformation campaign. .

Bob
 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
> >popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate
of
> >individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
> >national popular vote.
>
> Could you please explain how the sum of all state votes (done at the same
> time in a manner consistent with the current "nation-wide" votes on
> presidential election day) would differ significantly from a single
> nation-wide vote?
>

Sure. Voter turnout would be significantly different. Voter turnout is a
function of many things, but one of the significant factors is campaign
intensity. Some states are so consistently Democratic or Republican they
you never see much campaign activity in those states. Unique issues
important to those states aren't focused on. Even within a state, certain
congressional districts are the same way. This isn't significant for winner
take all elections, but it is for the proportional elections a couple of
states have.

A nationwide populare vote would be a very different campaign.

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
755
J_D
J_D
Back
Top