8/20 So I was doing a dumbass experiment last night, as nerds are wont to
do. Say we have a three-state nation, with 10,000 people in each
state, and 1 electoral vote for each state. You need 2 out of 3
electoral votes to win. Let's say Kerry wins 100% of state 1.
Let's say Dubya wins 5,001 votes in states 2 and 3. Dubya wins
the Presidency with 2 out of 3 electoral votes, and Kerry wins
the popular vote with 19,998 votes to 10,002 votes, or 2 : 1.
If you do the same experiment with 51 states of 10K people each,
you obtain a ratio of 2.92 : 1 -- or 25% of the nation elected
the President although 75% of the nation voted for the other guy.
I offer no opinion - it's just a dumbass experiment.
\_ Good thing we have the congress instead of an elected monarchy.
\_ Yes, we knew this along, which is why it's pointless to vote
in a non-battleground state. I mean, you're just realizing this?
Have you people actually attempted to stay awake in your
High School U.S. History and Government classes?
\_ No, I know you all realized the electoral college system will
give and has given in the most recent election presidencies to
those without the popular vote.
However, not all of you may have worked out the related basic
math experiment.
And actually, I suggest that all Kerry voters in California
turn out, and all Dubya voters stay home, just because it
would be funny if we ended up with 55% popular vote to Kerry
and he lost.
\_ Actually, I thought 2000 was only the second time ever that
someone won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.
\_ Four times total.
\_ Could you please name them?
\_ http://csua.org/u/8ot
\_ It isn't pointless. In a non-battleground state, everyone should
vote for Nader so we can break the two-party system which is
destroying this country.
\_ Amen! Go Nader! Break the Democrat monopoly on the
liberal vote in America! -- ilyas
\_ one of the nerds who I work with who also likes to do experiments
like this found a situation in which the electoral college will
be tied which is based on very reasonable assumptions about how
the states might actually vote.
\_ I did this in the LA Times flash tool for assigning votes.
\_ The electoral college as it is, is undemocratic. It used to be
a lot less democratic. The founders didn't really trust 'the people'
\_ hint: we live in a republic so undemocratic is ok.
\_ bullshit since 'the mexican people' would be able to
run the United States just by filing up LA
\_ Well first around 100 million Mexicans have to sneak in, then
become citizens and register to vote. This will happen
sometime after we elect a black lesbian atheist as president.
\_ We all knew Condi was doing Dubya just for this!
\_ It was part of the large state/small state compromise. Good
thing too, or the 5 largest metro areas would run everything.
\_ This has happened in past presidential elections.
\_ "Some call you the elite. I call you my base."
\_ All your base belong to us.
\_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
Are your base _are_ belong to us.
\_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
_All_ your base are belong to us.
\_ You have no time to troll make your time.
\_ State 1 voters got screwed. Voters in states 2 and 3 got their
issues heard.
\_ How did State 1 voters get screwed? There was a system in place
long before either candidate was born. This is how we do it.
Every voting system has flaws. You just want a system that is
flawed in a way you believe to be favorable to your candidate.
What you're missing in your description is that out here in the
non-theoretical real world of voters, states don't have exactly
the same number of voters, citizens, electoral votes, etc. Only
about half those elible to vote, do. With only 1/2 "+1" of that
required for a win, roughly 12.5% of the eligble voting
population will win the election for either candidate. The
problem isn't the electoral college. It is lack of voter
participation. A popular vote of 12.5% or electorally assigned
12.5% is still a trivial fraction of who could and should be
voting.
\_ No, actually, we're just talking about our thought experiment.
No one is advocating a change from the electoral college
system. The real effect of this discussion is that it would
be very funny if Dubya lost the popular vote by a significant
percentage, and still is re-elected.
\_ no, it wouldn't be funny. -tom
\_ uhm, ok, nevermind then. I still think it's ugly that only
12.5% "+1" of the elible potential voters will decide who
the next President and all other elected officials will be
and similar numbers have done so in the past. Nevermind,
fuck the rest of them if they can't bother to go vote.
\-Read about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. That is the main
result in this area. --psb
\_ The Theorem applies when there are at least two voters and at
least three options, but in our presidential election we only
have two candidates.
\_ How about adding Nader? State 1: Kerry-10,000. States 2 & 3:
Bush-3334, Kerry & Nader-3333 each. Win: Bush. Ratio of 6668
vs. 23,332. Wee! Fun! Brought to an insane level it could be
4 vs. 29,996. Ah math...
\_ You are varying the wrong variable. If you have 100
serious candidates for one position and assume a single
election where everyone agrees a plurality is a fair win,
you can even more trivially show a win with 1% of the
vote.
\_ I think I already implicitely stated that the scenario isn't
fair. I would also claim that the system allows the concerns
of states 2 and 3 to be addressed more fully, and this is
an important consideration. What is more important depends
whether your greater concern is on state 1, state 2 or 3, or
states 1+2+3.
\_ The concern for your issues should be proportional to your
population. -- Small-d-democrat
\_ It depends on your scope. If I am unemployed and homeless
in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going to do right
by California? Shoudl I care? Or do I care more about
job programs where I live?
\_ It depends on your scope. If I am unemployed and
homeless in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going
to do right by California? Shoudl I care? Or do I care
more about job programs where I live?
\_ Are you seriously advocating pure democracy??
\_ This is not fair at all and the founding fathers
understood that. Why should lots of hip and trendy
SF iPoding linux users whose main concern is the
lack of high speed internet and marriage rights for
homeless gays with a dope prescription dictate
national policy for the poor rural hick farmers
with gun racks in the back of their F150s who
actually do all the hard work of keeping America
fed and clothed?
Everyone has valid concerns and the most equitable
way to address these is the system we have. Maybe
its not perfect but it is the best system we know
about.
\_ there are 750K people in SF, which represents
about .5% of the electorate. They wouldn't dictate
to people in Wyoming, any more than people in Wyoming
dictate to people in SF now, if the electoral college
were gotten rid of. And hey, candidates might actually
have to campaign to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of just
corn farmers in Iowa. -tom
\_ The greater bay area has more people than the state
of wyoming but I think wyoming, being a state,
should have greater rights than a large city. Our
system does that. As far as Iowa, change the
primary system and no one will give a shit about
Iowa or New Hampshire.
\_ States don't have rights. People have rights.
-tom
\_ Uh, no.
<DEAD>encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/State's%20rights<DEAD>
\_ Try actually *reading* that definition.
""States' Rights" is actually a
misnomer; only the people, in
American constitutional law, hold rights."
And more fundamentally, only people hold
interests; "California" isn't a single
entity with a single point of view. -tom
\_ I did before posting it. And?
\_ So if states don't have rights, then
what is all that "full faith and credit"
stuff about?
\_ Well, technically, 100% of State 1 voters got screwed; and
50.01% of state 2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
\_ You are assuming that (to continue the thought experiment)
Kerry didn't adjust his message to capture states 2 and 3.
A more realistic case would be that, the closer the contest
in states 2 and 3, the more the candidate would try to cater
to those states. State 1 got screwed in another way because
they were so much in the pocket of one candidate, there is
no need for either candidate to address the specific needs
of the state.
\_ I don't think "adjusting your message" really gets that
many votes. I think most people are in tune to enough
sources of information today that if you talk out both
sides of your mouth in two different states, the people
do hear what was said in the other state and label you
a flip flopper.
\_ I think this is a case where the persuasiveness of the math
exceeds that of your explanation, but that's just IMO.
Like I am Dilbert, and you are the PHB.
\_ I would claim that my argument on the variablity of the
message is not addressed by the mathematical model.
How about this? Let's say a candidate has a platform
with some degree of variability. For states 1, 2, and
3, platform A will get you {100,10,10}% of the vote,
+/- moe. Platform B will get you {100, 20, 20}, C
{100, 30, 30}, and N {100, 49.99, 49.99}. Which one
should the candidate choose? Now how about a more
realisitic platform N' (since likely N does not exist
in the real world), which yields {51, 49.99, 49.99} +/-
moe? Who gets screwed then?
\_ I don't know if it's my fault or not, but I really
don't understand the above. Let's say all good
people vote for Kerry. All evil people (who honestly
think they're good) vote for Dubya. 100% of state 1
residents happen to be good. 50.01% of state 2 and
3 residents happen to be evil. Dubya is elected:
100% of state 1 voters got screwed; 50.01% of state
2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
\_ I am claiming the existence of a platform N'
{51, 49.99, 49.99}% that gives the candidate the
best chance to win. Let's say his starting
platform is N, with {100, 55, 55}% of the votes.
Then, to get the N', he has to give up 49% of the
votes in state 1 in exchange for 10% of the votes
in states 2 and 3. However, the candidate has no
chance to win given N, but has a better chance to
win with N', so that's a good exchange, and the
platform end ups being more targeted towards
voters in states 2 and 3 than 1. The complement
happens with the other candidate, whose winning
strategy would be a platform that yields {dontcare,
50.01, 50.01}.
strategy would be a platform that yields {dont
care, 50.01, 50.01}.
\_ Strong Bad totally needs to come in and kick
all of your weakling nerdy asses.
\_ People in big cities are more likely to engage
in groupthink, so the electoral college system dilutes
this effect.
\_ You have either never lived in a small subruban town, or you
are being intentionaly evil. If the former, I salute you:
keep up the good work and continue to live the good life. If
the latter: fuck you--please choke on a donut and die. |
http://csua.com/feed/