Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Smaller states are already well represented in the Senate.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
ECV votes are equal to the number of senators plus representatives i.e. 100 + 438. Senators are fixed at 2 per state. Representatives are apportioned by population, though each state must have at least 1.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Smaller states are already well represented in the Senate.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
Wyoming has roughly 600,000 people - so 3 EVs mean it has 1 EV per 200,000
California has 40,000,000 people with 55 EVs, so roughly 1 EV per 700,000.
Isn't there a requirement of a minimum of 3 for any state? Montana, the Dakotas and Delaware all provide 3 EC votes.
The question therefore is why California doesn't have more EC delegates but based on Wyoming it would have 200 and I suspect the GOP would have some issues with that.
Surely the EC is just the sum of Senators and Representatives for any State, therefore not proportionate?. Plus 3 for DC.
One easy change to the EC that individual states could do is what Main and Nebraska have: split their votes depending on how many votes each candidate gets (one way or another) rather than going with winner takes all. It would make candidates pay attention to all the states, not just the swing ones.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If you want to understand why the United States is different, a good starting point is to ponder upon the meaning "United States" - what do those two words mean individually, and what do they mean juxtaposed? Each State getting a say in the electoral process makes sense from this perspective.
Someone in the last thread was decrying the Senate's composition, two from each State, as unfair. Fair or not, it reflects the entire purpose of the Senate! If it were to be more proportionate, you might as well just scrap it and have a unicameral system. A knock-on effect of either abandoning the Senate or reforming so its makeup almost always shadows the House of Representatives, is that change would come much easier. Generally this favours progressives over conservatives, of course, but wouldn't be costless for someone who generally dislikes conservatism, since it means progressive actions can be more easily overturned later, and you might not like the changes a more conservative administration would be empowered to pursue.
The number of mandates per constituency is determined every eight years by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, using a formula established in the Constitution (Article 57), which gives weight both to the population and to the geographic size of each county. The factor of county geographic size in mandate allocation is a historical consideration intended to balance the perceived uneven distribution of power between rural and urban citizens in national politics. The result is that the country’s rural constituencies, which are significantly larger in geographic size than the urban constituencies, are allocated a greater number of seats than would be the case if based strictly on population.
The discrepancy is particularly notable in Finnmark County where there are 7,409 registered voters per mandate, while in Vestfold, there are 18,464 per mandate. The Finnmark quotient is a 50 per cent deviation from the average quotient in the country (14,954 votes per mandate). Four other counties have a deviation of approximately 20 per cent, and a total of seven counties deviate from the norm by more than 15 percent.
While some OSCE/ODIHR EAM interlocutors accepted this structural inequality of the vote based on a constitutional formula, others advocated for a stricter or strict equality of the vote noting that the historical rationale is no longer relevant and that the deviation is an infringement of the right to equal suffrage. The Council of Europe’s Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) recommends for equal suffrage that “the permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10 per cent, and should certainly not exceed 15 per cent except in special circumstances (protection of a concentrated minority, sparsely populated administrative entity).”
There's a lot in that. Perhaps the House of Lords should have just 8 elected members. Two from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
Important point about the he Electoral College that gets ignored is the the Founding Fathers hated what it became. In the 1800s James Madison proposed an amendment to stop the states awarding electors on a winner takes all basis. Indeed the whole idea of pre-pledged electors runs completely contrary to the Electoral College as intended by the founding fathers. .
Argueably the only time the Electoral College has worked "as intended" was the first election of Washington.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Smaller states are already well represented in the Senate.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
Wyoming has roughly 600,000 people - so 3 EVs mean it has 1 EV per 200,000
California has 40,000,000 people with 55 EVs, so roughly 1 EV per 700,000.
Isn't there a requirement of a minimum of 3 for any state? Montana, the Dakotas and Delaware all provide 3 EC votes.
The question therefore is why California doesn't have more EC delegates but based on Wyoming it would have 200 and I suspect the GOP would have some issues with that.
Apportioning 538 electors among the States+DC according to the 2010 census total population:
California 65 Texas 44 New York 34 Florida 33 Illinois 22 Pennsylvania 22 Ohio 20 Michigan 17 Georgia 17 North Carolina 17 New Jersey 15 Virginia 14 Washington 12 Massachusetts 11 Indiana 11 Arizona 11 Tennessee 11 Missouri 11 Maryland 10 Wisconsin 10 Minnesota 9 Colorado 9 Alabama 8 South Carolina 8 Louisiana 8 Kentucky 8 Oregon 7 Oklahoma 7 Connecticut 6 Iowa 5 Mississippi 5 Arkansas 5 Kansas 5 Utah 5 Nevada 5 New Mexico 4 West Virginia 3 Nebraska 3 Idaho 3 Hawaii 2 Maine 2 New Hampshire 2 Rhode Island 2 Montana 2 Delaware 2 South Dakota 1 Alaska 1 North Dakota 1 Vermont 1 District of Columbia 1 Wyoming 1 TOTAL 538
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
Nonsense. The Republicans are already complaining even though they lost both the popular vote and the EC. Think what would happen if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC?!
I make that fifteen vice-Presidents from Truman, of which six became President, giving Harris a naive probability of 2/5 to subsequently become President herself.
That’s before factoring in that she’s a useless politician
What was the phrase? A screeching harpie?
I forget but that wasn’t referring to Harris (and I wouldn’t use it either). It was referring to a certain type of TV pundit / commentator (not exclusively of the left - I’d include Ann Coulter in this category) with a strident voice and extreme and inflexible politics. Yes, it does relate to women (because of the pitch of their voice) but only in same way that I can’t think of any female politician I world refer to as a “ranting fool” whereas there are plenty of make Tory backbenchers who are in that category (eg Mark Francois)
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
No it`s not. The 300-329 would lose if Trump wins Arizona. The -48.5 would still win in that eventuality.
"Queens Daily Eagle" - “A 74-year-old Jamaica Estates developer has less than three months left at his current address after Americans overwhelmingly voted him out of the White House, the AP projected Saturday.”
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
No it`s not. The 300-329 would lose if Trump wins Arizona. The -48.5 would still win in that eventuality.
I mean the Arizona (1.18) and Biden EC Votes 300-329 (1.14). I should have said aren't they the same as each other.
The other nonsense thing about the EC is the ridiculously unproportional number of votes each state gets, and this is because rin the early 1900s as the US population shifted from rural to urban the politicians representing the rural states realised there power was goi g to ebb away and refused to increase the number of representatives.
Normally after every census the size of Congress was increased. That came to a total halt as rural politicians protected their power.
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
No it`s not. The 300-329 would lose if Trump wins Arizona. The -48.5 would still win in that eventuality.
-48.5 is not an absolute certainty - it would lose if trump wins Georgia (as would the 300-329 obvs).
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Smaller states are already well represented in the Senate.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
They do don’t there? I thought it was no of representatives plus 2?
Yes, but the US used to, every 10 years, increase the number of representatives as the size of the county increased.
The difference in size between the largest and smallest congressional district after a century of refusing to o increase the size of the House s now absurd.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
Nonsense. The Republicans are already complaining even though they lost both the popular vote and the EC. Think what would happen if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC?!
For those people advocating electing a POTUS by popular vote, that would be fine if the margin was always 4 or 5 million votes. If the margin was 4000, you have a big problem. And it is a feature/bug of FPTP 2-party systems that sooner rather than later you will get a close result.
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
No it`s not. The 300-329 would lose if Trump wins Arizona. The -48.5 would still win in that eventuality.
I mean the Arizona (1.18) and Biden EC Votes 300-329 (1.14). I should have said aren't they the same as each other.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes those two are the same bet.
On topic, the better bets are Joe Biden -48.5 (absolute certainty) at 1.12, Joe Biden electoral college votes 300-329 at 1.14, Democrats winning Arizona at 1.18, and Joe Biden at 52.00-54.99% at 4.1 on Betfair.
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
The -48.5 bet is quality, but isn't the 300-329 bet and the Arizona bet the same? So may as well just take the longer odds one.
No it`s not. The 300-329 would lose if Trump wins Arizona. The -48.5 would still win in that eventuality.
-48.5 is not an absolute certainty - it would lose if trump wins Georgia (as would the 300-329 obvs).
True, though I'm of the opinion that is essentially impossible. Biden's lead is too big to be changed by a recount, and the remaining ballots are military AND overseas citizens. The latter are hugely Dem, it's entirely possible that the ~9k ballots will actually expand Biden's lead but they certainly won't overcome it.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Smaller states are already well represented in the Senate.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
They do don’t there? I thought it was no of representatives plus 2?
Given that some states are so small they only get one representative, that plus two makes a big difference.
Yes.
It’s 435 Representatives plus 100 Senators plus 3 for DC (which is treated as a State for this purpose)
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
There are other ways of ensuring small states are treated equally without permanently biasing presidential and Senate elections in the direction of conservative small state rural voters.
I could probably just about accept keeping the Senate composition as it is if the Presidential election were switched to be being elected by a plurality of voters.
What justification is there for giving voters in a small state additional weight in Presidential elections? The President ought to e elected on a straight forward one person one vote basis.
Great. Go and start a campaign to change the constitution instead of whining to me
One easy change to the EC that individual states could do is what Main and Nebraska have: split their votes depending on how many votes each candidate gets (one way or another) rather than going with winner takes all. It would make candidates pay attention to all the states, not just the swing ones.
It would be but ...
... it would likely boost the GOP:
2000 Bush 286 Gore 252
2004 Bush 319 Kerry 219
2008 Obama 301 McCain 237
2012 Romney 277 Obama 260 !!!
2016 Trump 292 Clinton 246
Generally because the bigger states, California especially, are won by the Dems then splitting out their EC votes helps the GOP.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
Apart from the 1824 election, which was a bit weird given there were THREE main candidates, since 1876, only Republicans have trespassed into the White House after losing the popular vote:
I think there is a none-zero chance that Trump (not wanting to hang around as a lame-duck) might resign and let Pence take over for the transition.
Though that would be an acceptance of his defeat.
Betfair punters think there is a 15% chance that he will resign before 20 Jan.
That market will surely settle at "NO". Even if he resigns. The rules say:
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
Surely it is more important for the system to be fair to individual voters than states. If the popular vote determined the presidency we would have (by necessity) a very different Republican Party than the one that currently exists today, one in which a Trumpian figure could not succeed.
And people would pay even less attention to the “flyover states”
The US is a federal system. The president is chosen by the states, not by the population. That’s the way it works.
(I’m curious - I suspect it would be legal for a state to change its constitution so the governor gets to nominate the electors without reference to the voters)
I think there is a none-zero chance that Trump (not wanting to hang around as a lame-duck) might resign and let Pence take over for the transition.
Though that would be an acceptance of his defeat.
Betfair punters think there is a 15% chance that he will resign before 20 Jan.
That market will surely settle at "NO". Even if he resigns. The rules say:
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
If he flounces out surely it will be on a permanent basis. But if you're right, there is 1.17 sitting there.
"Queens Daily Eagle" - “A 74-year-old Jamaica Estates developer has less than three months left at his current address after Americans overwhelmingly voted him out of the White House, the AP projected Saturday.”
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
There are other ways of ensuring small states are treated equally without permanently biasing presidential and Senate elections in the direction of conservative small state rural voters.
I could probably just about accept keeping the Senate composition as it is if the Presidential election were switched to be being elected by a plurality of voters.
What justification is there for giving voters in a small state additional weight in Presidential elections? The President ought to e elected on a straight forward one person one vote basis.
Great. Go and start a campaign to change the constitution instead of whining to me
You cannot see the knife in her other hand. He was lucky to get out of there alive.
We often forget Her Majesty has served in the military.
And her husband served in one of the Royal Navy's most complete naval victories.
Matapan, I presume you mean?
That's the one. Three cruisers for one Swordfish I think.
Phil the Greek got a Mention In Dispatches for that one, IIRC.
He was in charge of searchlight control, on his ship - at that period in time, radar, while vital wasn't suitable for complete blind aiming. The aim of searchlights in night fighting was to blind the enemy (imagine looking down a sighting telescope at a zillion candlepower) and illuminate the enemy for your ships to aim at.
Get it wrong and you have just lit a perfect beacon for the enemy.
Apparently, when they switched on, the lights were perfectly aimed at the Italian gunnery director towers. So they were blinded, while the British fleet fired multiple salvoes....
Isn't he more Phil the Dane?
The Italian heavy cruisers Fiume, Pola, and Zara all had their main guns trained for and aft. The recent book by John Gooch Mussolini's War implied that The Regina Marina had not pursued radar technology.
That's true, but at a nautical mile or so range, it doesn't mean much - just think of HMS Belfast from, say, Tower Hill underground. The RN were all absolutely astounded by the guns being in the resting position. They certainly were expecting something much more on the qui vive [edit]. (And the air attacks in the Med. were dreadful, as well, anyway.)
Further to that, the Itaslians could have done some real damage with their 203m guns (ie eight inches, cf. Belfast 6"). Other than the central part of the hull over the engines, boilers and magazines, above the waterline it was only really the main turrets that weere armoured, one or two bits of the inner bridges apart. Much of the armour on battleships and cruisers was flat on the deck (literally) so not much good at point blank range where the trajectory was flattish. So our Phil was in a very exposed position, not much better than being in a tin piedish. Maybe some splinter protection if he was lucky.
At a mile range, 8" could penetrate 12"+ of face hardened plate, in many cases. So *everything* on the battleships was vulnerable.
Of Guadalcanal, American cruisers sank a Japanese battleship, by getting in close, IIRC
And most cruisers had torpedoes - so it would have seemed even more of a risk as the Italians, like the Japanese and British, had decent ones ab initio. Though, to my surprise, I find on checking that they got left off the Zara class cruisers in the design process - Washington Ttreaty limits and all that.
Did you see my earlier comment about HMS Formidable finding itself in a battle line with three battleships at the crucial point in the battle?
FPT Sorry - was called away to dinner and a minor family crisis.
I did watch that little video whuich you recommended - much better than most such things, thank you - which indeed made that point. This makes me want to fish out m copy of Stern 'Big gun actions' to see what it says ...
Even if pro rata rather lower than some of the Belgian and Swiss numbers.
With positivity rates getting this high, I'm not sure even the pro rata numbers are particularly meaningful for these daily test results. One part of the UK's response that has been very valuable is directing some testing resources at the ONS household survey, which must have been a tough call when testing capacity was tighter. But it's so valuable to get a clear-ish picture of spread across the community, include age-groups and regions, without having to worry about confounding factors like total test numbers, whether tests have been concentrated in high-risk areas, changes in eligibility or enthusiasm for testing etc. Countries still relying on the daily test numbers are basically fighting while half-blindfolded.
Not so many months back, I was reading lots of stuff about "timely and effective government action", "strong public health systems" or various structural factors that confidently explained why places like Argentina and the Czech Republic were having relatively "good" pandemics. I did think "don't judge based on the scores before half-time" but still, look how rapidly things have gone downhill for them - those supposed explanations must have been almost entirely vacuous. Shows how little we understanding about stopping Covid unfortunately, even at a "big picture" level.
I think there is a none-zero chance that Trump (not wanting to hang around as a lame-duck) might resign and let Pence take over for the transition.
Though that would be an acceptance of his defeat.
Betfair punters think there is a 15% chance that he will resign before 20 Jan.
That market will surely settle at "NO". Even if he resigns. The rules say:
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
If he resigned and Pence was sworn in wouldn't that count? As opposed to him being temporarily removed by the 25th Amendment, perhaps while undergoing a medical procedure.
Even if pro rata rather lower than some of the Belgian and Swiss numbers.
Its not going too hot in Germant either, ~25k cases a day and crucially this time around the government said it was currently unable to trace 75% of new cases.
I think there is a none-zero chance that Trump (not wanting to hang around as a lame-duck) might resign and let Pence take over for the transition.
Though that would be an acceptance of his defeat.
Betfair punters think there is a 15% chance that he will resign before 20 Jan.
That market will surely settle at "NO". Even if he resigns. The rules say:
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
If he resigned and Pence was sworn in wouldn't that count? As opposed to him being temporarily removed by the 25th Amendment, perhaps while undergoing a medical procedure.
Not sure - which is why I`d avoid this market - rules are too unclear for me to get involved.
It was a geniune question - I'd read somewhere that he Boris would wait until he could phone Biden, but any delays would have looked very odd - and unhelpful.
I make that fifteen vice-Presidents from Truman, of which six became President, giving Harris a naive probability of 2/5 to subsequently become President herself.
That’s before factoring in that she’s a useless politician
Not so useless that she cannot beat Republicans.
Do I detect a sore loser?
No, you detect someone who has had Harris as a Senator for several years and is massively unimpressed. She’s wooden and uninspiring.
Also - traditionally - the job of the Presidential candidate is to win the White House while the VP candidate is focused on supporting senatorial and house candidates. How did she do on that measure?
Edit: FWIW this is the perfect outcome in my view. Trump is gone, and the manner of his going will condemn him to irrelevance. The Republicans have done well enough in the house and senate to rein in the worst excesses of the nuttier democrats
Precisely so.
No, Trump was a symptom, not a cause. The cause has not been addressed, namely a growing proportion of the population is sinking further and further into the mire while more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
And this will only get worse. When you have the CEO of a firm like Lyft, 30-s something (I think), living on the West Coast and a multi-billionaire, talking about how the CV pandemic is a great long-term opportunity for the firm because it means that rising unemployment will mean that more people will want to become Lyft drivers which enables Lyft to pay them less, don't expect America to get happier any time soon.
You cannot see the knife in her other hand. He was lucky to get out of there alive.
We often forget Her Majesty has served in the military.
And her husband served in one of the Royal Navy's most complete naval victories.
Matapan, I presume you mean?
That's the one. Three cruisers for one Swordfish I think.
Phil the Greek got a Mention In Dispatches for that one, IIRC.
He was in charge of searchlight control, on his ship - at that period in time, radar, while vital wasn't suitable for complete blind aiming. The aim of searchlights in night fighting was to blind the enemy (imagine looking down a sighting telescope at a zillion candlepower) and illuminate the enemy for your ships to aim at.
Get it wrong and you have just lit a perfect beacon for the enemy.
Apparently, when they switched on, the lights were perfectly aimed at the Italian gunnery director towers. So they were blinded, while the British fleet fired multiple salvoes....
Isn't he more Phil the Dane?
The Italian heavy cruisers Fiume, Pola, and Zara all had their main guns trained for and aft. The recent book by John Gooch Mussolini's War implied that The Regina Marina had not pursued radar technology.
That's true, but at a nautical mile or so range, it doesn't mean much - just think of HMS Belfast from, say, Tower Hill underground. The RN were all absolutely astounded by the guns being in the resting position. They certainly were expecting something much more on the qui vive [edit]. (And the air attacks in the Med. were dreadful, as well, anyway.)
Further to that, the Itaslians could have done some real damage with their 203m guns (ie eight inches, cf. Belfast 6"). Other than the central part of the hull over the engines, boilers and magazines, above the waterline it was only really the main turrets that weere armoured, one or two bits of the inner bridges apart. Much of the armour on battleships and cruisers was flat on the deck (literally) so not much good at point blank range where the trajectory was flattish. So our Phil was in a very exposed position, not much better than being in a tin piedish. Maybe some splinter protection if he was lucky.
At a mile range, 8" could penetrate 12"+ of face hardened plate, in many cases. So *everything* on the battleships was vulnerable.
Of Guadalcanal, American cruisers sank a Japanese battleship, by getting in close, IIRC
And most cruisers had torpedoes - so it would have seemed even more of a risk as the Italians, like the Japanese and British, had decent ones ab initio. Though, to my surprise, I find on checking that they got left off the Zara class cruisers in the design process - Washington Ttreaty limits and all that.
Did you see my earlier comment about HMS Formidable finding itself in a battle line with three battleships at the crucial point in the battle?
FPT Sorry - was called away to dinner and a minor family crisis.
I did watch that little video whuich you recommended - much better than most such things, thank you - which indeed made that point. This makes me want to fish out m copy of Stern 'Big gun actions' to see what it says ...
There was apparently some debate as to if it actually fired its guns before being ordered out of the line.
Even if pro rata rather lower than some of the Belgian and Swiss numbers.
With positivity rates getting this high, I'm not sure even the pro rata numbers are particularly meaningful for these daily test results. One part of the UK's response that has been very valuable is directing some testing resources at the ONS household survey, which must have been a tough call when testing capacity was tighter. But it's so valuable to get a clear-ish picture of spread across the community, include age-groups and regions, without having to worry about confounding factors like total test numbers, whether tests have been concentrated in high-risk areas, changes in eligibility or enthusiasm for testing etc. Countries still relying on the daily test numbers are basically fighting while half-blindfolded.
Not so many months back, I was reading lots of stuff about "timely and effective government action", "strong public health systems" or various structural factors that confidently explained why places like Argentina and the Czech Republic were having relatively "good" pandemics. I did think "don't judge based on the scores before half-time" but still, look how rapidly things have gone downhill for them - those supposed explanations must have been almost entirely vacuous. Shows how little we understanding about stopping Covid unfortunately, even at a "big picture" level.
Surprising though it is the UK has one of the best performances in the autumn wave.
Now if only that imbecile Shapps hadn't been a yes man to the airlines and airports.
I think there is a none-zero chance that Trump (not wanting to hang around as a lame-duck) might resign and let Pence take over for the transition.
Though that would be an acceptance of his defeat.
Betfair punters think there is a 15% chance that he will resign before 20 Jan.
That market will surely settle at "NO". Even if he resigns. The rules say:
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
If he resigned and Pence was sworn in wouldn't that count? As opposed to him being temporarily removed by the 25th Amendment, perhaps while undergoing a medical procedure.
Not sure - which is why I`d avoid this market - rules are too unclear for me to get involved.
Fair. I'll steer clear. I've got an old Ladbrokes bet on him leaving office in 2021, so hope he doesn't flounce off early.
I make that fifteen vice-Presidents from Truman, of which six became President, giving Harris a naive probability of 2/5 to subsequently become President herself.
That’s before factoring in that she’s a useless politician
Not so useless that she cannot beat Republicans.
Do I detect a sore loser?
No, you detect someone who has had Harris as a Senator for several years and is massively unimpressed. She’s wooden and uninspiring.
Also - traditionally - the job of the Presidential candidate is to win the White House while the VP candidate is focused on supporting senatorial and house candidates. How did she do on that measure?
Edit: FWIW this is the perfect outcome in my view. Trump is gone, and the manner of his going will condemn him to irrelevance. The Republicans have done well enough in the house and senate to rein in the worst excesses of the nuttier democrats
Precisely so.
No, Trump was a symptom, not a cause. The cause has not been addressed, namely a growing proportion of the population is sinking further and further into the mire while more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
And this will only get worse. When you have the CEO of a firm like Lyft, 30-s something (I think), living on the West Coast and a multi-billionaire, talking about how the CV pandemic is a great long-term opportunity for the firm because it means that rising unemployment will mean that more people will want to become Lyft drivers which enables Lyft to pay them less, don't expect America to get happier any time soon.
Though Biden clearly will try and shift the US to the left economically as a result of that, albeit constrained by a GOP Senate.
Trump was actually quite good for the bank balances of the super rich, Biden will raise their taxes
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
There are other ways of ensuring small states are treated equally without permanently biasing presidential and Senate elections in the direction of conservative small state rural voters.
I could probably just about accept keeping the Senate composition as it is if the Presidential election were switched to be being elected by a plurality of voters.
What justification is there for giving voters in a small state additional weight in Presidential elections? The President ought to e elected on a straight forward one person one vote basis.
Great. Go and start a campaign to change the constitution instead of whining to me
I make that fifteen vice-Presidents from Truman, of which six became President, giving Harris a naive probability of 2/5 to subsequently become President herself.
That’s before factoring in that she’s a useless politician
Not so useless that she cannot beat Republicans.
Do I detect a sore loser?
No, you detect someone who has had Harris as a Senator for several years and is massively unimpressed. She’s wooden and uninspiring.
Also - traditionally - the job of the Presidential candidate is to win the White House while the VP candidate is focused on supporting senatorial and house candidates. How did she do on that measure?
Edit: FWIW this is the perfect outcome in my view. Trump is gone, and the manner of his going will condemn him to irrelevance. The Republicans have done well enough in the house and senate to rein in the worst excesses of the nuttier democrats
Precisely so.
No, Trump was a symptom, not a cause. The cause has not been addressed, namely a growing proportion of the population is sinking further and further into the mire while more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
And this will only get worse. When you have the CEO of a firm like Lyft, 30-s something (I think), living on the West Coast and a multi-billionaire, talking about how the CV pandemic is a great long-term opportunity for the firm because it means that rising unemployment will mean that more people will want to become Lyft drivers which enables Lyft to pay them less, don't expect America to get happier any time soon.
Though Biden clearly will try and shift the US to the left economically as a result of that, albeit constrained by a GOP Senate.
Trump was actually quite good for the bank balances of the super rich, Biden will raise their taxes
I suspect he will try, and I suspect he will fail until at least 2022 and perhaps afterwards. We'll see, but I think GOP compromise will be very minimal. God only knows what will happen if a SCOTUS Justice dies in early 2021.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
On PB, perhaps, but I reckon that in the US we’d be hearing about it a lot more.
Even if pro rata rather lower than some of the Belgian and Swiss numbers.
With positivity rates getting this high, I'm not sure even the pro rata numbers are particularly meaningful for these daily test results. One part of the UK's response that has been very valuable is directing some testing resources at the ONS household survey, which must have been a tough call when testing capacity was tighter. But it's so valuable to get a clear-ish picture of spread across the community, include age-groups and regions, without having to worry about confounding factors like total test numbers, whether tests have been concentrated in high-risk areas, changes in eligibility or enthusiasm for testing etc. Countries still relying on the daily test numbers are basically fighting while half-blindfolded.
Not so many months back, I was reading lots of stuff about "timely and effective government action", "strong public health systems" or various structural factors that confidently explained why places like Argentina and the Czech Republic were having relatively "good" pandemics. I did think "don't judge based on the scores before half-time" but still, look how rapidly things have gone downhill for them - those supposed explanations must have been almost entirely vacuous. Shows how little we understanding about stopping Covid unfortunately, even at a "big picture" level.
Surprising though it is the UK has one of the best performances in the autumn wave.
Now if only that imbecile Shapps hadn't been a yes man to the airlines and airports.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
On PB, perhaps, but I reckon that in the US we’d be hearing about it a lot more.
Since 1824, it's only happened to Republican candidates, on four occasions: 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.
I make that fifteen vice-Presidents from Truman, of which six became President, giving Harris a naive probability of 2/5 to subsequently become President herself.
That’s before factoring in that she’s a useless politician
Not so useless that she cannot beat Republicans.
Do I detect a sore loser?
No, you detect someone who has had Harris as a Senator for several years and is massively unimpressed. She’s wooden and uninspiring.
Also - traditionally - the job of the Presidential candidate is to win the White House while the VP candidate is focused on supporting senatorial and house candidates. How did she do on that measure?
Edit: FWIW this is the perfect outcome in my view. Trump is gone, and the manner of his going will condemn him to irrelevance. The Republicans have done well enough in the house and senate to rein in the worst excesses of the nuttier democrats
Precisely so.
No, Trump was a symptom, not a cause. The cause has not been addressed, namely a growing proportion of the population is sinking further and further into the mire while more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
And this will only get worse. When you have the CEO of a firm like Lyft, 30-s something (I think), living on the West Coast and a multi-billionaire, talking about how the CV pandemic is a great long-term opportunity for the firm because it means that rising unemployment will mean that more people will want to become Lyft drivers which enables Lyft to pay them less, don't expect America to get happier any time soon.
Though Biden clearly will try and shift the US to the left economically as a result of that, albeit constrained by a GOP Senate.
Trump was actually quite good for the bank balances of the super rich, Biden will raise their taxes
He may have been good for their bank balances but he at least gave the impression he also gave some sort of care about the American worker. Pre-CV, it was the non-college educated workers who were seeing the fastest wage increases.
Biden will do nothing on that front. American companies will no longer feel the need to bring operations back to America and will outsource again. The American worker is expected to get whacked again.
Voting intention in seats gained by the Tories at GE2019
CON 33% LAB 50% LD 10%
Note this is a small sub-sample with a high margin of error
Tories still ahead 45% to 38% in seats they held in 2019, so most likely it signals the Tories lose their majority and back to a hung parliament with Labour probably largest party this time unlike 2017, still not a Labour majority
And in other news Labour +4 (42 vs 38) in tonight's Opinium
The end of right wing populism is sweeping the globe. I expect Brexit to be cancelled before the end of the year,.
Is it though...Eastern Europe, is still very popular e.g. Poland re-elected one. Australia voted for a very right wing government. Macron is very unpopular on France, with Le Pen waiting in the wings.
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
If Democrat candidates for President were winning through the electoral college, but narrowly losing the national popular vote at the same time, we'd hear far less of this argument.
Nonsense. The Republicans are already complaining even though they lost both the popular vote and the EC. Think what would happen if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC?!
For those people advocating electing a POTUS by popular vote, that would be fine if the margin was always 4 or 5 million votes. If the margin was 4000, you have a big problem. And it is a feature/bug of FPTP 2-party systems that sooner rather than later you will get a close result.
Yes, but you are not electing people to represent the states, as you are in the senate. The president represents the whole country and should be elected directly with a direct mandate based on OPOV.
And in other news Labour +4 (42 vs 38) in tonight's Opinium
The end of right wing populism is sweeping the globe. I expect Brexit to be cancelled before the end of the year,.
Is it though...Eastern Europe, is still very popular e.g. Poland re-elected one. Australia voted for a very right wing government. Macron is very unpopular on France, with Le Pen waiting in the wings.
Right wing populism is still very much there because a large part of the population feels as though it has been sh*t upon from a large height. Anyone who thinks it is going away is very much mistaken.
Comments
This is also striking:
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1325175997524828160
Even if pro rata rather lower than some of the Belgian and Swiss numbers.
Argueably the only time the Electoral College has worked "as intended" was the first election of Washington.
California 65
Texas 44
New York 34
Florida 33
Illinois 22
Pennsylvania 22
Ohio 20
Michigan 17
Georgia 17
North Carolina 17
New Jersey 15
Virginia 14
Washington 12
Massachusetts 11
Indiana 11
Arizona 11
Tennessee 11
Missouri 11
Maryland 10
Wisconsin 10
Minnesota 9
Colorado 9
Alabama 8
South Carolina 8
Louisiana 8
Kentucky 8
Oregon 7
Oklahoma 7
Connecticut 6
Iowa 5
Mississippi 5
Arkansas 5
Kansas 5
Utah 5
Nevada 5
New Mexico 4
West Virginia 3
Nebraska 3
Idaho 3
Hawaii 2
Maine 2
New Hampshire 2
Rhode Island 2
Montana 2
Delaware 2
South Dakota 1
Alaska 1
North Dakota 1
Vermont 1
District of Columbia 1
Wyoming 1
TOTAL 538
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Titter ...
Normally after every census the size of Congress was increased. That came to a total halt as rural politicians protected their power.
The difference in size between the largest and smallest congressional district after a century of refusing to o increase the size of the House s now absurd.
And it is a feature/bug of FPTP 2-party systems that sooner rather than later you will get a close result.
It’s 435 Representatives plus 100 Senators plus 3 for DC (which is treated as a State for this purpose)
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1325180546675322880
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1325180546675322880?s=20
https://twitter.com/stookie2711/status/1325158050366287875
https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1325176095046475776
... it would likely boost the GOP:
2000
Bush 286 Gore 252
2004
Bush 319 Kerry 219
2008
Obama 301 McCain 237
2012
Romney 277 Obama 260 !!!
2016
Trump 292 Clinton 246
Generally because the bigger states, California especially, are won by the Dems then splitting out their EC votes helps the GOP.
https://electoralvotemap.com/what-if-all-states-split-their-electoral-votes-like-maine-and-nebraska/
1876
1888
2000
2016
https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/1325160954057773059
"For clarity Donald Trump will be deemed to officially cease being President when he is replaced on a permanent basis. Any situation where he steps down on an interim/temporary basis will not count(Updated 05/10/2020 @ 17:00 GMT)"
I would read that to mean that if he flounces out this won`t count.
The US is a federal system. The president is chosen by the states, not by the population. That’s the way it works.
(I’m curious - I suspect it would be legal for a state to change its constitution so the governor gets to nominate the electors without reference to the voters)
Raab still hedging.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1325138242249895937
Twat
his residence following a divisive discussion among his local community
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1325136780396437507?s=20
https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP/status/1325179691284668424?s=20
https://twitter.com/jacindaardern/status/1325154006549721088?s=20
https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1325145433828593664?s=20
https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1325145671742054400?s=20
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1325143233358409728?s=20
To win, Biden would have to take Georgia and North Carolina but it doesn't`t matter whether he wins Arizona.
I did watch that little video whuich you recommended - much better than most such things, thank you - which indeed made that point. This makes me want to fish out m copy of Stern 'Big gun actions' to see what it says ...
Not so many months back, I was reading lots of stuff about "timely and effective government action", "strong public health systems" or various structural factors that confidently explained why places like Argentina and the Czech Republic were having relatively "good" pandemics. I did think "don't judge based on the scores before half-time" but still, look how rapidly things have gone downhill for them - those supposed explanations must have been almost entirely vacuous. Shows how little we understanding about stopping Covid unfortunately, even at a "big picture" level.
It was a geniune question - I'd read somewhere that he Boris would wait until he could phone Biden, but any delays would have looked very odd - and unhelpful.
And this will only get worse. When you have the CEO of a firm like Lyft, 30-s something (I think), living on the West Coast and a multi-billionaire, talking about how the CV pandemic is a great long-term opportunity for the firm because it means that rising unemployment will mean that more people will want to become Lyft drivers which enables Lyft to pay them less, don't expect America to get happier any time soon.
Now if only that imbecile Shapps hadn't been a yes man to the airlines and airports.
Trump was actually quite good for the bank balances of the super rich, Biden will raise their taxes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
BoZo will get his jotters for a start
Voting intention in seats gained by the Tories at GE2019
CON 33%
LAB 50%
LD 10%
Note this is a small sub-sample with a high margin of error
https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/1325185869867855874?s=20
Biden will do nothing on that front. American companies will no longer feel the need to bring operations back to America and will outsource again. The American worker is expected to get whacked again.
Poland:
- New cases: 27,875
- Positivity rate: 41.7% (+9)
- In hospital: 20,249 (+770)
- On ventilator: 1,813 (+110)
- New deaths: 349
Italy:
- New cases: 39,811
- Positivity rate: 28.9% (+0.8)
- In hospital: 25,109 (+1,104)
- In ICU: 2,634 (+119)
- New deaths: 425
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-voting-intention-5th-november-2020/