The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
Well, it is, but it was a gerrymander to get Slave States to sign up back at the founding. Many founding fathers wanted a straight popular vote for Presidency but slave states objected. Madison formulated the Electoral Collage and the 3/5ths abomination to get the Slave states on board.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
Well, it is, but it was a gerrymander to get Slave States to sign up back at the founding. Many founding fathers wanted a straight popular vote for Presidency but slave states objected. Madison formulated the Electoral Collage and the 3/5ths abomination to get the Slave states on board.
Nah - still missing the partisan element required from a gerrymander
Your theory just makes it a sub optimal outcome from a negotiation
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
Gerrymandering is specifically changing the boundaries of electoral districts to benefit the party doing the drawing.
Whatever the Electoral College is, it's not that.
People do tend to use it in a broader sense of a perceived institutional or procedural unfairness thesedays, but I think that can just confuse matters.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Something seems wrong about using the approach to project but I can't quite put my finger on it.
EDIT: got it, it's going to favour the smaller Bolsonaro heavy areas for the moment which he is doing well in. I think this projection is going to swing heavily.
If it's swing based, surely that's less of a concern. For Bolsonaro to overtake Lula, he logically wins votes everywhere.
I think it's Minas Gerais that highlights my issues
B won it 58/42 in 2018. It's currently 50/50 which "logically" seems really bad for him. But at the start of the month he got 43.5% there so by patrickjfl that's really good for him.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
He’s someone who defines himself against the prevailing norms. That can sometimes be valuable, but not when you just slip into the other lot of mirror image prevailing norms on the other side of the culture wars, which he does.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
Not so sure I agree with your first sentence. Surely Goodwin's anti-wokeism is in line with the prevailing norms, rather than against them?
He defines himself against what he sees as the prevailing norms. To be fair in academia he will definitely be an outlier.
But more importantly what about N-Trance?
I have just watched/listened on YouTube. Yes, a good track, but a bit safe.
In the video, I particularly enjoyed the bit where Ms Trance flails out of the side window of the car.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Is there an English language channel on which I can watch the Brazilian election?
I don't know but it's annoying that YouTube seem to have disabled live subtitles translated into other languages. I used to watch election night programmes in foreign languages and be able to follow them because of the subtitles.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
He’s someone who defines himself against the prevailing norms. That can sometimes be valuable, but not when you just slip into the other lot of mirror image prevailing norms on the other side of the culture wars, which he does.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
Not so sure I agree with your first sentence. Surely Goodwin's anti-wokeism is in line with the prevailing norms, rather than against them?
He defines himself against what he sees as the prevailing norms. To be fair in academia he will definitely be an outlier.
But more importantly what about N-Trance?
I have just watched/listened on YouTube. Yes, a good track, but a bit safe.
In the video, I particularly enjoyed the bit where Ms Trance flails out of the side window of the car.
She was apparently a friend of theirs at university. They asked her to film it driving around Nottingham.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
I think the durability of the system even with its flaws for so long is pretty remarkable honestly.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 7h Far more important, is the Russian hope that the US midterm elections bring Republican control to both the House and the Senate. Such a victory, but a party still dominated by its Trumpist core, would provide real hope for an eventual reduction in US support for Ukraine.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
An aspiring pedant asks, wouldn't it be unenfrancised rather than disenfranchised?
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
That’s a bit harsh - they were pioneers and it’s difficult to get it right first time. The amendment issue is the one they messed up on - although I understand why they did it (we forget that the federal government is the subordinate of the states)
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
I think the durability of the system even with its flaws for so long is pretty remarkable honestly.
I mean. If you ignore the whole part where the very obviously flaws lead to the Civil War that was predicted to happen and the ugly political compromises that were made in the wake of that war as durable then sure.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
Something seems wrong about using the approach to project but I can't quite put my finger on it.
EDIT: got it, it's going to favour the smaller Bolsonaro heavy areas for the moment which he is doing well in. I think this projection is going to swing heavily.
If it's swing based, surely that's less of a concern. For Bolsonaro to overtake Lula, he logically wins votes everywhere.
I think it's Minas Gerais that highlights my issues
B won it 58/42 in 2018. It's currently 50/50 which "logically" seems really bad for him. But at the start of the month he got 43.5% there so by patrickjfl that's really good for him.
If we look at swing since the first round about 7 states seem to be showing enough to Bolsonaro for him to win. Minas Gerais is one of those showing a swing to him but not quite enough. Then there are a few (perhaps 8 or 9) showing a swing to Lula.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
Most arguments in this case are just “X got more votes than Y!!! It’s wrong Y is president! Evil Republicans!”
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
I think the durability of the system even with its flaws for so long is pretty remarkable honestly.
I mean. If you ignore the whole part where the very obviously flaws lead to the Civil War that was predicted to happen and the ugly political compromises that were made in the wake of that war as durable then sure.
I'm not ignoring it at all - a political system surviving a major civil war, and some pretty major changes to it as a result (and indeed some other changes over the years), yet maintaining systemic continuity, is pretty unusual I'd say.
Think how many countries have entirely new constitutions, different legislative systems, heads of state and government, or complete system breakdown and collapse, across a 250 year period.
I think most people would agree there are and always have been some major flaws in the US system, and some major ructions (to put it mildly), but for a pretty short series of documents pulled together at the start and some bolted on adjustments of various sizes over the years, the system is still quite recognizable from its foundation, even though it is different.
That seems pretty durable to me. What you raise is not an issue of durability, but system flaws, which is not the same thing. The Roman Empire was pretty durable too, and its flaws led to far more disruption and chaos.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
It was also not expected that any voters would live there permanently. It was assumed a few gentlemen would turn up, conduct their business and sod off while slaves and/or women kept the houses from falling down.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
Pretty daft that the US is still in thrall to the slave owners’ compromises.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
Maybe it used to have a very small population compared to now.
StillWaters said: "It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia."
Actually pieces were carved out of both Virginia and Maryland, and in 1846 Virginia piece was returned in a "retrocession".
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
I think the durability of the system even with its flaws for so long is pretty remarkable honestly.
I mean. If you ignore the whole part where the very obviously flaws lead to the Civil War that was predicted to happen and the ugly political compromises that were made in the wake of that war as durable then sure.
I'm not ignoring it at all - a political system surviving a major civil war, and some pretty major changes to it as a result (and indeed some other changes over the years), yet maintaining systemic continuity, is pretty unusual I'd say.
Think how many countries have entirely new constitutions, different legislative systems, heads of state and government, or complete system breakdown and collapse, across a 250 year period.
I think most people would agree there are and always have been some major flaws in the US system, and some major ructions (to put it mildly), but for a pretty short series of documents pulled together at the start and some bolted on adjustments of various sizes over the years, the system is still quite recognizable from its foundation, even though it is different.
That seems pretty durable to me. What you raise is not an issue of durability, but system flaws, which is not the same thing. The Roman Empire was pretty durable too, and its flaws led to far more disruption and chaos.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
In later years a lot of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish the electoral collage. Madison hated it. But they were stymied by the fact they had made it so hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
I think the durability of the system even with its flaws for so long is pretty remarkable honestly.
I mean. If you ignore the whole part where the very obviously flaws lead to the Civil War that was predicted to happen and the ugly political compromises that were made in the wake of that war as durable then sure.
I'm not ignoring it at all - a political system surviving a major civil war, and some pretty major changes to it as a result (and indeed some other changes over the years), yet maintaining systemic continuity, is pretty unusual I'd say.
Think how many countries have entirely new constitutions, different legislative systems, heads of state and government, or complete system breakdown and collapse, across a 250 year period.
I think most people would agree there are and always have been some major flaws in the US system, and some major ructions (to put it mildly), but for a pretty short series of documents pulled together at the start and some bolted on adjustments of various sizes over the years, the system is still quite recognizable from its foundation, even though it is different.
That seems pretty durable to me. What you raise is not an issue of durability, but system flaws, which is not the same thing. The Roman Empire was pretty durable too, and its flaws led to far more disruption and chaos.
Isn't that what we're complaining about?
Certainly I think treating constitutional fudges of the 1770s and 80s as holy writ (but only if your interpretation of them fits your political agenda) is not helpful.
I extol the virtues of our own messed up arrangements over the US's all the time. But I think so much of the early stuff still being in there is impressive in respect of the drafters, even if we disagree with what's in there.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
Most arguments in this case are just “X got more votes than Y!!! It’s wrong Y is president! Evil Republicans!”
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote (indeed almost identical to Lula's current popular voteshare in Brazil)
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
Much like our FPTP but with 54 constituencies (I think).
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
Much like our FPTP but with 54 constituencies (I think).
True, although the size of victory (in terms of seats) does matter in our system.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
Most arguments in this case are just “X got more votes than Y!!! It’s wrong Y is president! Evil Republicans!”
Well, it has the virtue of simplicity I guess.
Indeed. What could be simpler than "all votes should count equally"?
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
What usually matters in a democracy is the view of the majority of people, not arbitrary lines on a map.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
Most arguments in this case are just “X got more votes than Y!!! It’s wrong Y is president! Evil Republicans!”
Well, it has the virtue of simplicity I guess.
Most of the protagonists could easily drop the first two sentences to make it even simpler
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Here's what you said:
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
It's amazing it still needs to be explained re the Senate.
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Sure. But most partisans who advance the popular vote argument are relying on the bulk of people not being aware of their constitutional history
Most people generally, and its certainly true here as well, are unaware of their constitutional history, as you suggest. Those who want want to change it may well be more aware than most, so a distinction would be needed I think between those who argue X should be the case in ignorance of the system deliberately being set up for reason Y, and those who argue X should be the case because they do not agree with reason Y.
Most arguments in this case are just “X got more votes than Y!!! It’s wrong Y is president! Evil Republicans!”
Well, it has the virtue of simplicity I guess.
Most of the protagonists could easily drop the first two sentences to make it even simpler
That's be more a script for a weekly political comedy show.
Probably but at the moment it is heading for the closest Brazilian Presidential election since the end of military rule in 1985, so don't expect Bolsonaro to concede anytime soon
Can I just say how pleasant it was not to have a weekend full of Conservative party leadership speculation. Is it too much to wish for a period of calm before the inevitable Winter crises?
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
What usually matters in a democracy is the view of the majority of people, not arbitrary lines on a map.
The Founding Fathers were also seeking to reduce the risk of civil war or the breakup of the Union, which if smaller states get consistently ignored would be a stronger possibility.
Most democracies are also representative not direct democracies, otherwise majority opinions on the death penalty and high taxes on the rich would get more weight
Fun US fact. Through the entire life of the USA the Size of the House of Representatives increased as the population increased (wee blip around the Civil war). Every census was followed by an expansion of the chamber.
Until the start of the 1900s. At that point they stopped voting to expand the chamber. By amazing coincidence that was the first census to show more Americas living in Urban areas that Rural areas.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
What usually matters in a democracy is the view of the majority of people, not arbitrary lines on a map.
The Founding Fathers were also seeking to reduce the risk of civil war or the breakup of the Union, which if smaller states get consistently ignored would be a stronger possibility
Back when the nation was about the States, not the federal government. The federal government is now much more powerful than ever envisaged, so really what the Founding Fathers thought is not relevant.
This 2nd round feels a lot like Pennsylvania 2020 just not as extreme on the betting market (where Trump was strong favourite as the votes were being counted).
Comments
A vintage “Encyclopedia Britannica” Commercial from 1988
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/58920207
Each state having two Senators was a deliberate move by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the smaller states had some sort of firewall against being dominated by the large populous states.
So, yes, it's entirely designed to make sure it is NOT representative of population (the Senate not the EC votes).
Your theory just makes it a sub optimal outcome from a negotiation
https://twitter.com/fasc1nate/status/1586089226084524033
B won it 58/42 in 2018. It's currently 50/50 which "logically" seems really bad for him.
But at the start of the month he got 43.5% there so by patrickjfl that's really good for him.
In the video, I particularly enjoyed the bit where Ms Trance flails out of the side window of the car.
https://imgur.com/a/hR8Xy40
The blue line is Lula's second round lead, as we head towards 100% counted.
You can see that Lula MIGHT be caught by the grey line. The grey line is his lead in the first round.
To lose, Lula would have to be caught by the yellow line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7RjmSHZsGk
They were mostly a big bunch of idiots who failed to spot the very obvious flaws in the systems they were creating.
Tocantins, 97% counted, B 49%, 49% 2018.
Lula very close to crossover but his rate of advance seems to be slowing?
Presume the Oracle of Norfolk @wooliedyed is shovelling on?
Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
·
7h
Far more important, is the Russian hope that the US midterm elections bring Republican control to both the House and the Senate. Such a victory, but a party still dominated by its Trumpist core, would provide real hope for an eventual reduction in US support for Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1586715642375331844
Following the Google results link I get to this page. This looks different to what’s being discussed here. What’s the discrepancy?
67.8% votes in.
Lula 50.01 %.
Bolsonaro 49.99 %.
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
Think how many countries have entirely new constitutions, different legislative systems, heads of state and government, or complete system breakdown and collapse, across a 250 year period.
I think most people would agree there are and always have been some major flaws in the US system, and some major ructions (to put it mildly), but for a pretty short series of documents pulled together at the start and some bolted on adjustments of various sizes over the years, the system is still quite recognizable from its foundation, even though it is different.
That seems pretty durable to me. What you raise is not an issue of durability, but system flaws, which is not the same thing. The Roman Empire was pretty durable too, and its flaws led to far more disruption and chaos.
Actually pieces were carved out of both Virginia and Maryland, and in 1846 Virginia piece was returned in a "retrocession".
https://resultados.tse.jus.br/oficial/app/index.html#/eleicao/resultados
Gut feeling he ends up somewhere around 51%.
So. To lay or not?
I extol the virtues of our own messed up arrangements over the US's all the time. But I think so much of the early stuff still being in there is impressive in respect of the drafters, even if we disagree with what's in there.
Pays for a meal, I guess. Woah. What you going to cream from that?
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote (indeed almost identical to Lula's current popular voteshare in Brazil)
+£376
(cash out £269)
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
My research was to ask him about his research.
(Checks BF rules)
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
I've been out.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2022/oct/30/brazil-election-2022-live-results-lula-bolsonaro-runoff
51 to 53% all seems possible.
Not a knockout...
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
@Samfr
·
17m
Replying to
@Samfr
Lula ahead in the raw vote count now. Shouldn't be anyway back for Bolsonaro. Still 🤞🤞
Most democracies are also representative not direct democracies, otherwise majority opinions on the death penalty and high taxes on the rich would get more weight
Cashed out and going to bed.
Well done to @Balrog and @TheWhiteRabbit
Until the start of the 1900s. At that point they stopped voting to expand the chamber. By amazing coincidence that was the first census to show more Americas living in Urban areas that Rural areas.
It’s even less sensible than FPP, because under FPP you are actually electing MPs, rather than mere tokens towards a magical 538 winning post.
New president thread