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
Yes - people.
Sure.
But I’m really objecting to the use of value judgments. It’s sloppy thinking.
It would be unfair if different states were treated differently. It would be unfair if certain racial groups only got a fraction of the vote of a white male.
It’s not unfair if the system is based around states but you think it should be based around people instead. It could be wrong or inappropriate or all sorts of things. But it’s not unfair
Sure. You inherit a skewed electoral system, skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers, and which is enormously difficult to change, as an accident of history.
I understand you’re not unsympathetic to the idea of random inheritance, and it has something to be said for it. Fairness is not foremost among those argument, though.
"Skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers" suggests that originally the designers basically hoped for one man, one vote, but fudged it a bit around the edges, and somehow this fudge factor has become more and more unrepresentative as the decades have ploughed on.
This simply isn't true. Indeed much of the action in the early presidential elections took place in the legislatures of the states themselves - they really were sending out electors to represent "the state", and it didn't go to a popular vote at all. Though this varied from state to state, another indication of the federal nature of the system.
Your notion that the individual, not the state, is the appropriate and natural unit for US presidential elections is very much a value judgement. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's a case that really needs a much deeper argument than "the current system is skewed". It's skewed if you start from your conception, but where does that arise from? It's not the historic tradition. It changes what the words "United States" even mean. If it was done strictly by population, someone who feels (not unreasonably) that the states constitute the natural units of the USA would argue that such a set-up is "skewed", in the sense that e.g. Delaware would now get such a tiny say in the matter, it's not something the state would have agreed to sign up to when vesting power in the federal presidential system in the first place. Indeed, the ratio of electors between the smallest and largest state has gone from 3.33 in the 1788 election (okay I'm cheating a bit, let's go with a ratio of 7 in 1792) to 18.33 today. On that basis, the system has got more and more skewed towards the larger states, and if anything, smaller states should be given more protection by beefing up their number of electors. I think a rule of representatives+7 rather than +2 would restore the power disparity between states to 1788 levels... of course someone who argues on a population would find this even more unfair!
It's a question I think America needs to sort out for itself. But it's got some nuance to it, and people who think that weighting EC by population or just using popular vote overall is the "correct" approach need a bit more justification than relying on it being obviously and self-evidently "fair". It involves a substantial shift from a system that recognises the hybrid nature of the vote (part popular, part federated) to one that works on a much more unitary basis, so this is about more than "fairness".
He does sort of have a point. I think it is as much to do with the media being based in urban locations, thus the easy story was last time the meltdowns and this time celebration, as it is happening right outside their windows.
Yeah, there was only a couple of points in it, you'd think Biden got 80% or something.
It’s a comprehensive victory in the end.
But it’s absolutely not a mandate for further culture wars.
Biden needs to reach out to his opponents, not fight them.
In two years, with a voting rights act passed to stop his shit, she is going to bury Kemp for Governor.
I think Trump's opposition to mail-in voting is going to hurt the GOP in the run-off. If you look at 2008, turnout at the runoff is like 60% of turnout at the GE / first round. With good organizing it should be *way* easier to get mail-in voters to repeat mail-in than turning out a bunch of angry Trump voters show up in person and vote in an election with no Trump.
I notice places like New York are ticking up again now. Up to 3k cases as day, 3x up in a month. Illinois (which includes Chicago), 11k cases, up from 1500 or some at start of October.
It's the combination of the weather and kids going back to school.
Rashford is 2.6 to be in the top 3 in Sports Personality of the Year, which seems generous compared with 3 to win the thing. Probably this is because of fears the new Tory-led BBC might not nominate him.
Italy's collapsing health system: Shocking pictures show patients on ventilators lying on field stretchers in hospital corridors as country battles Covid second wave
The northern region of Lombardy, centred on Italy's business capital Milan, remained the hardest hit area, reporting 11,489 new cases on Saturday against 9,934 on Friday.
By next weekend Leicester will have as many inpatients as we did in March and we are far from the worst affected part of the country.
It really is a good month to stay at home, if you can. I cannot...
Having been saying for months LOL, about as likely to contract malaria in Devon, it transpires I was seriously exposed to a positive case on Wednesday night in fecking WIDECOMBE. All along, down along, out along, lee.
Rashford is 2.6 to be in the top 3 in Sports Personality of the Year, which seems generous compared with 3 to win the thing. Probably this is because of fears the new Tory-led BBC might not nominate him.
Given all the stories on Hamilton, including stuff about him as 'cultural icon, activist, musician' and 'How Hamilton can use his power and influence beyond sport' on the BBC sports pages, the F1 lobby will be pushing hard.
Rashford is 2.6 to be in the top 3 in Sports Personality of the Year, which seems generous compared with 3 to win the thing. Probably this is because of fears the new Tory-led BBC might not nominate him.
Given all the stories on Hamilton, including stuff about him as 'cultural icon, activist, musician' and 'How Hamilton can use his power and influence beyond sport' on the BBC sports pages, the F1 lobby will be pushing hard.
Do we not talk about Hamilton being a tax dodger these days?
Rashford is 2.6 to be in the top 3 in Sports Personality of the Year, which seems generous compared with 3 to win the thing. Probably this is because of fears the new Tory-led BBC might not nominate him.
Given all the stories on Hamilton, including stuff about him as 'cultural icon, activist, musician' and 'How Hamilton can use his power and influence beyond sport' on the BBC sports pages, the F1 lobby will be pushing hard.
Do we not talk about Hamilton being a tax dodger these days?
I have a suspicion a new PR team have been in place for him to ensure not, given he has enough plaudits in F1 to fill plenty of column inches, without the non-F1stuff getting write ups.
Rashford is 2.6 to be in the top 3 in Sports Personality of the Year, which seems generous compared with 3 to win the thing. Probably this is because of fears the new Tory-led BBC might not nominate him.
Given all the stories on Hamilton, including stuff about him as 'cultural icon, activist, musician' and 'How Hamilton can use his power and influence beyond sport' on the BBC sports pages, the F1 lobby will be pushing hard.
Do we not talk about Hamilton being a tax dodger these days?
I have a suspicion a new PR team have been in place for him to ensure not, given he has enough plaudits in F1 to fill plenty of column inches, without the non-F1stuff getting write ups.
I seemed to remember in a recent interview he was talking about possibly returning to the UK in the future....the obvious question being what was stopping him. It isn't like he won't be able to get a mortgage.
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
Yes - people.
Sure.
But I’m really objecting to the use of value judgments. It’s sloppy thinking.
It would be unfair if different states were treated differently. It would be unfair if certain racial groups only got a fraction of the vote of a white male.
It’s not unfair if the system is based around states but you think it should be based around people instead. It could be wrong or inappropriate or all sorts of things. But it’s not unfair
Sure. You inherit a skewed electoral system, skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers, and which is enormously difficult to change, as an accident of history.
I understand you’re not unsympathetic to the idea of random inheritance, and it has something to be said for it. Fairness is not foremost among those argument, though.
"Skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers" suggests that originally the designers basically hoped for one man, one vote, but fudged it a bit around the edges, and somehow this fudge factor has become more and more unrepresentative as the decades have ploughed on.
This simply isn't true...
So you think the founders contemplated states with nearly a hundred times the population of others ? Or that politics would be split between only two factions ?
I’m not convinced.
The largest state around that time was ten times the size of the smallest. But rather more significantly, the founders never appreciated just how difficult it would become to amend the constitution.
Italy's collapsing health system: Shocking pictures show patients on ventilators lying on field stretchers in hospital corridors as country battles Covid second wave
The northern region of Lombardy, centred on Italy's business capital Milan, remained the hardest hit area, reporting 11,489 new cases on Saturday against 9,934 on Friday.
By next weekend Leicester will have as many inpatients as we did in March and we are far from the worst affected part of the country.
It really is a good month to stay at home, if you can. I cannot...
Having been saying for months LOL, about as likely to contract malaria in Devon, it transpires I was seriously exposed to a positive case on Wednesday night in fecking WIDECOMBE. All along, down along, out along, lee.
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
Yes - people.
Sure.
But I’m really objecting to the use of value judgments. It’s sloppy thinking.
It would be unfair if different states were treated differently. It would be unfair if certain racial groups only got a fraction of the vote of a white male.
It’s not unfair if the system is based around states but you think it should be based around people instead. It could be wrong or inappropriate or all sorts of things. But it’s not unfair
Sure. You inherit a skewed electoral system, skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers, and which is enormously difficult to change, as an accident of history.
I understand you’re not unsympathetic to the idea of random inheritance, and it has something to be said for it. Fairness is not foremost among those argument, though.
"Skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers" suggests that originally the designers basically hoped for one man, one vote, but fudged it a bit around the edges, and somehow this fudge factor has become more and more unrepresentative as the decades have ploughed on.
This simply isn't true...
So you think the founders contemplated states with nearly a hundred times the population of others ? Or that politics would be split between only two factions ?
I’m not convinced.
The largest state around that time was ten times the size of the smallest. But rather more significantly, the founders never appreciated just how difficult it would become to amend the constitution.
Indeed. There was supposed to be a Constitutional Convention every 10 years to review and amend if necessary.
Italy's collapsing health system: Shocking pictures show patients on ventilators lying on field stretchers in hospital corridors as country battles Covid second wave
The northern region of Lombardy, centred on Italy's business capital Milan, remained the hardest hit area, reporting 11,489 new cases on Saturday against 9,934 on Friday.
By next weekend Leicester will have as many inpatients as we did in March and we are far from the worst affected part of the country.
It really is a good month to stay at home, if you can. I cannot...
Having been saying for months LOL, about as likely to contract malaria in Devon, it transpires I was seriously exposed to a positive case on Wednesday night in fecking WIDECOMBE. All along, down along, out along, lee.
He does sort of have a point. I think it is as much to do with the media being based in urban locations, thus the easy story was last time the meltdowns and this time celebration, as it is happening right outside their windows.
Yeah, there was only a couple of points in it, you'd think Biden got 80% or something.
After 4 years of the Toddler-in-Chief, it probably feels like the second coming. If it pisses Farage off then that is even better IMO.
I doubt that many people actually feel that strongly, to be honest.
He does sort of have a point. I think it is as much to do with the media being based in urban locations, thus the easy story was last time the meltdowns and this time celebration, as it is happening right outside their windows.
Yeah, there was only a couple of points in it, you'd think Biden got 80% or something.
After 4 years of the Toddler-in-Chief, it probably feels like the second coming. If it pisses Farage off then that is even better IMO.
I doubt that many people actually feel that strongly, to be honest.
I believe on that assertion, you are wrong.
The number of people who feel like it's the second coming? I bet that's in the low single % digits.
I notice places like New York are ticking up again now. Up to 3k cases as day, 3x up in a month. Illinois (which includes Chicago), 11k cases, up from 1500 or some at start of October.
Yes indeed. Sleepy Joe has *just* won power on the proviso that he alone can banish the virus and restore health and wealth to the US (and the free world)
He's got a lot to live up to so we'll see if he's up to 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
Yes - people.
Sure.
But I’m really objecting to the use of value judgments. It’s sloppy thinking.
It would be unfair if different states were treated differently. It would be unfair if certain racial groups only got a fraction of the vote of a white male.
It’s not unfair if the system is based around states but you think it should be based around people instead. It could be wrong or inappropriate or all sorts of things. But it’s not unfair
Sure. You inherit a skewed electoral system, skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers, and which is enormously difficult to change, as an accident of history.
I understand you’re not unsympathetic to the idea of random inheritance, and it has something to be said for it. Fairness is not foremost among those argument, though.
"Skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers" suggests that originally the designers basically hoped for one man, one vote, but fudged it a bit around the edges, and somehow this fudge factor has become more and more unrepresentative as the decades have ploughed on.
This simply isn't true...
So you think the founders contemplated states with nearly a hundred times the population of others ? Or that politics would be split between only two factions ?
I’m not convinced.
The largest state around that time was ten times the size of the smallest. But rather more significantly, the founders never appreciated just how difficult it would become to amend the constitution.
Indeed. There was supposed to be a Constitutional Convention every 10 years to review and amend if necessary.
Not exactly. Many of the Founding Fathers, aware of the experimental nature of what they were trying to create, expected that Article V conventions would be called regularly, maybe every 10-20 years, to keep the Constitution up-to-date as current affairs developed. In fact no Article V convention has ever been called; the ordinary amendment process has proved sufficient.
I notice places like New York are ticking up again now. Up to 3k cases as day, 3x up in a month. Illinois (which includes Chicago), 11k cases, up from 1500 or some at start of October.
Yes indeed. Sleepy Joe has *just* won power on the proviso that he alone can banish the virus and restore health and wealth to the US (and the free world)
He's got a lot to live up to so we'll see if he's up to it...
I’d sooner have him organising the international effort than the moron he’s just kicked out
Why has Kamala come in to 230? Punters covering themselves who backed Biden but wished they had laid Trump instead? Trumpy loons who believe there's a conspiracy to ditch Biden and install Evil Kam? Or is someone spreading rumours about Biden's health?
Why has Kamala come in to 230? Punters covering themselves who backed Biden but wished they had laid Trump instead? Trumpy loons who believe there's a conspiracy to ditch Biden and install Evil Kam? Or is someone spreading rumours about Biden's health?
In to 230? How much money did it take to bring it in? Might only be a couple of pounds.
Good speech. I wonder if they'll ever move inauguration closer to the election, or vice versa. The two month transition does seem excessive these days.
Good speech. I wonder if they'll ever move inauguration closer to the election, or vice versa. The two month transition does seem excessive these days.
Great speech by Biden, entirely free of culture warriorism and rich with conciliation. Perfectly pitched.
Good speech. I wonder if they'll ever move inauguration closer to the election, or vice versa. The two month transition does seem excessive these days.
Great speech by Biden, entirely free of culture warriorism and rich with conciliation. Perfectly pitched.
Good speech. I wonder if they'll ever move inauguration closer to the election, or vice versa. The two month transition does seem excessive these days.
It’d require an amendment. Not impossible as I think it wouldn’t be particularly contentious, but I don’t think,it’d be high enough on anyone’s agenda to gain much traction.
This was the best possible result IMO, a clear Biden win but not a landslide. In the same way I would have preferred a 40 seat majority for the Tories last year instead of an 80 seat one.
Hi all - is there any value in the bet that was suggested on here earlier - I can't remember I think it was by Casino - for Biden to get 52-54.999% of the vote? Trading on Betfair at 5.1 and I've just noticed that California have only counted 66% of votes, and New York has a fair few to go as well.
Hi all - is there any value in the bet that was suggested on here earlier - I can't remember I think it was by Casino - for Biden to get 52-54.999% of the vote? Trading on Betfair at 5.1 and I've just noticed that California have only counted 66% of votes, and New York has a fair few to go as well.
It's about 50/50 IMO so probably worth a bet if you don't mind losing.
Looking around the twattersphere, there seems to have been isolated incidents of violence at various protests around the US today. Hopefully it all dies down now.
Hi all - is there any value in the bet that was suggested on here earlier - I can't remember I think it was by Casino - for Biden to get 52-54.999% of the vote? Trading on Betfair at 5.1 and I've just noticed that California have only counted 66% of votes, and New York has a fair few to go as well.
It's about 50/50 IMO so probably worth a bet if you don't mind losing.
Thanks for this. That's my thoughts on it too. I did rough calculations based on California and New York, assuming the remaining ballots had similar share to now (they could be different though) and ended up having Biden miss out by 0.3% or similar. But it seems worth it at the odds quoted, particularly if the new ballots lean more to Biden than the ones already counted.
Good speech. I wonder if they'll ever move inauguration closer to the election, or vice versa. The two month transition does seem excessive these days.
Unlikely. There has to be a transition period partly to allow counting to finish, and it is still going on in states that have been declared, then the electoral college convenes to formally elect the new president. The incoming president also has hundreds of jobs to fill, most of which would be permanent civil service jobs in Britain. And of course if they (roughly) halved the transition period, they'd run smack into Christmas and the New Year.
So there is not much scope to reduce the transition period, and it would probably not be considered worth the trouble of amending the constitution just to knock a few days off.
Looking around the twattersphere, there seems to have been isolated incidents of violence at various protests around the US today. Hopefully it all dies down now.
People worried about how close a lot of US law enforcement is to white nationalist militias but the flip side of that is that it seems to have been quite effective at infiltrating nascent terrorist cells...
Why has Kamala come in to 230? Punters covering themselves who backed Biden but wished they had laid Trump instead? Trumpy loons who believe there's a conspiracy to ditch Biden and install Evil Kam? Or is someone spreading rumours about Biden's health?
Under the market rules, it should be settled on Biden (because he has won most ECVs) even if the actual next president is Mike Pence, because Donald Trump steps down before the inauguration, or Kamala Harris if Joe Biden does. The name of the market is misleading to that extent.
So the Harris backers might be people who have not read the market rules, or who hope Betfair might misinterpret their own rules (not unprecedented) or it could have started as a prank, and then there could be automatic trading by so-called bots or even humans on the greater fool theory.
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
Yes - people.
Sure.
But I’m really objecting to the use of value judgments. It’s sloppy thinking.
It would be unfair if different states were treated differently. It would be unfair if certain racial groups only got a fraction of the vote of a white male.
It’s not unfair if the system is based around states but you think it should be based around people instead. It could be wrong or inappropriate or all sorts of things. But it’s not unfair
Sure. You inherit a skewed electoral system, skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers, and which is enormously difficult to change, as an accident of history.
I understand you’re not unsympathetic to the idea of random inheritance, and it has something to be said for it. Fairness is not foremost among those argument, though.
"Skewed way beyond what was intended by its designers" suggests that originally the designers basically hoped for one man, one vote, but fudged it a bit around the edges, and somehow this fudge factor has become more and more unrepresentative as the decades have ploughed on.
This simply isn't true...
So you think the founders contemplated states with nearly a hundred times the population of others ? Or that politics would be split between only two factions ?
I’m not convinced.
The largest state around that time was ten times the size of the smallest. But rather more significantly, the founders never appreciated just how difficult it would become to amend the constitution.
The two party issue is interesting, because all constitutions need to be written with a degree of flexibility to cope if political dynamics change, yet usually make more sense from the view of whatever political system was in place at the time. The possibility of factions emerging was clearly one the founding fathers considered, but accurately predicting today's political landscape is another issue. I'm not sure how fair it is to say they never appreciated how hard it would be to amend the constitution. I mean, they deliberately made it difficult because they thought it ought to be challenging to amend. But in a more party-factional era, the bar for attaining such consensus is raised higher. Would they have wanted much meddling with the EC system in reaction to demographic changes though? Even if they didn't realise how polarised politics would become, it would always have been clear that passing an amendment disempowering smaller states would be a tough ask, since they wouldn't be in any hurry to sign up to it! And this was fully deliberate. While it's possible to credit the founders with too much foresight, I think they knew the consequences of this one.
The disproportionality of the EC has also changed, but if they were happy to accept that VA/DE had a ratio of 12.6:1 on population (1790 census) and 7:1 on electors, a factor of 1.8 apart, then perhaps they'd be quite happy to accept today's CA/WY ratios of 68:1 on population and 18.3:1 on electors, with a factor of 3.7? It isn't an order of magnitude shift, though clearly substantial. If you don't view population as the appropriate primary or sole determinant of EC influence, you might be fine with it. Basing an argument around such disproportionality alone is essentially begging the question, because not everyone agrees population takes priority in a federal context.
There was certainly suspicion in the early US of bigger states getting too powerful. I'm not sure early USians would have approved of things getting to the point where one state is so much larger than another, and suspect that if anything they would have bolstered the powers of smaller states in response. I'd be astonished if you asked them whether they thought the very fact some states now have enormously larger populations than the small states would make it a better idea to switch to counting the national popular vote - I think it's far more likely they'd say the exact reverse and suggest raising the +2 to something higher! But then I'd be even more astonished if they could answer that at all, bearing in mind they're all dead, so their opinions shouldn't hold too much grip over us. The fact they saw states not individuals as the "units" of the US relevant to a presidential election at least indicates another perspective is possible. Doesn't dictate we need to follow, nor does it follow if they saw the future they'd change their own minds.
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
Am I broadly correct?
I agree about Arizona but don't have a clue about North Carolina.
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
Am I broadly correct?
I agree about Arizona but don't have a clue about North Carolina.
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
Am I broadly correct?
I agree about Arizona but don't have a clue about North Carolina.
Noted with thanks - for this and so many other valuable contributions, Andy.
Hi all - is there any value in the bet that was suggested on here earlier - I can't remember I think it was by Casino - for Biden to get 52-54.999% of the vote? Trading on Betfair at 5.1 and I've just noticed that California have only counted 66% of votes, and New York has a fair few to go as well.
I bought on this but I think it's touch and go. It might be 50:50 which I guess makes the bet value.
I'm expecting to lose but it might get close enough for me to trade out.
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
Am I broadly correct?
I agree about Arizona but don't have a clue about North Carolina.
My rough calculations show Arizona and North Carolina are unchanged based on the assumption that for each county, the new ballots are cast in the same proportion as those already counted. A couple of potential drawbacks are that they might not be cast in the same proportion if they are absentee (including military) ballots, and that the number of uncounted ballots is just an estimate, if I have correctly understood what we've been told over the last few days, and that I only considered votes for the big two and ignored minor candidates. I hope that helps, though I doubt it.
You can now buy Biden on the next President market at 1.05. There's about £45k available. This looks like a pretty risk free way of making a few bob quickly. I had a look at the rules and Betfair would have some justification in closing the market and paying out now. I expect they will hang on though until all the States are 100% counted, which should be later this week, Alaska being the last to report.
I wouldn't expect legal challenges or recounts to delay settlement. So, 5% interest over five days or so. Sounds ok to me.
You can now buy Biden on the next President market at 1.05. There's about £45k available. This looks like a pretty risk free way of making a few bob quickly. I had a look at the rules and Betfair would have some justification in closing the market and paying out now. I expect they will hang on though until all the States are 100% counted, which should be later this week, Alaska being the last to report.
I wouldn't expect legal challenges or recounts to delay settlement. So, 5% interest over five days or so. Sounds ok to me.
Edit: Of course if Donald chucks the towel in sooner you would expect payout immediately. I read a Fox story suggesting he might follow his lawyers' advice and quit in the next couple of days. Hope so, and not just because of my bank balance.
Comments
This simply isn't true. Indeed much of the action in the early presidential elections took place in the legislatures of the states themselves - they really were sending out electors to represent "the state", and it didn't go to a popular vote at all. Though this varied from state to state, another indication of the federal nature of the system.
Your notion that the individual, not the state, is the appropriate and natural unit for US presidential elections is very much a value judgement. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's a case that really needs a much deeper argument than "the current system is skewed". It's skewed if you start from your conception, but where does that arise from? It's not the historic tradition. It changes what the words "United States" even mean. If it was done strictly by population, someone who feels (not unreasonably) that the states constitute the natural units of the USA would argue that such a set-up is "skewed", in the sense that e.g. Delaware would now get such a tiny say in the matter, it's not something the state would have agreed to sign up to when vesting power in the federal presidential system in the first place. Indeed, the ratio of electors between the smallest and largest state has gone from 3.33 in the 1788 election (okay I'm cheating a bit, let's go with a ratio of 7 in 1792) to 18.33 today. On that basis, the system has got more and more skewed towards the larger states, and if anything, smaller states should be given more protection by beefing up their number of electors. I think a rule of representatives+7 rather than +2 would restore the power disparity between states to 1788 levels... of course someone who argues on a population would find this even more unfair!
It's a question I think America needs to sort out for itself. But it's got some nuance to it, and people who think that weighting EC by population or just using popular vote overall is the "correct" approach need a bit more justification than relying on it being obviously and self-evidently "fair". It involves a substantial shift from a system that recognises the hybrid nature of the vote (part popular, part federated) to one that works on a much more unitary basis, so this is about more than "fairness".
I already was.
Only me, Mrs BJ and tens of thousands of Americans dancing in the street were present
Down in New Orleans
In New York City..
Philadelphia, PA
Baltimore
In DC now
And don't forget the Motor City
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8924345/The-Queen-wears-face-mask-time-public-Remembrance-Service.html
Or that politics would be split between only two factions ?
I’m not convinced.
The largest state around that time was ten times the size of the smallest. But rather more significantly, the founders never appreciated just how difficult it would become to amend the constitution.
The previous guy tended to at length.
https://twitter.com/wheresthemind/status/1325173149105852422
He's got a lot to live up to so we'll see if he's up to it...
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
https://twitter.com/decisiondeskhq/status/1325243735655976960?s=21
Harris is awesome.
Edit: welcome, btw!
Yet somehow I still don’t want him to win it.
Funny old world.
What a campaign she has had.
So there is not much scope to reduce the transition period, and it would probably not be considered worth the trouble of amending the constitution just to knock a few days off.
So the Harris backers might be people who have not read the market rules, or who hope Betfair might misinterpret their own rules (not unprecedented) or it could have started as a prank, and then there could be automatic trading by so-called bots or even humans on the greater fool theory.
In short, I do not know but doubt it matters.
The disproportionality of the EC has also changed, but if they were happy to accept that VA/DE had a ratio of 12.6:1 on population (1790 census) and 7:1 on electors, a factor of 1.8 apart, then perhaps they'd be quite happy to accept today's CA/WY ratios of 68:1 on population and 18.3:1 on electors, with a factor of 3.7? It isn't an order of magnitude shift, though clearly substantial. If you don't view population as the appropriate primary or sole determinant of EC influence, you might be fine with it. Basing an argument around such disproportionality alone is essentially begging the question, because not everyone agrees population takes priority in a federal context.
There was certainly suspicion in the early US of bigger states getting too powerful. I'm not sure early USians would have approved of things getting to the point where one state is so much larger than another, and suspect that if anything they would have bolstered the powers of smaller states in response. I'd be astonished if you asked them whether they thought the very fact some states now have enormously larger populations than the small states would make it a better idea to switch to counting the national popular vote - I think it's far more likely they'd say the exact reverse and suggest raising the +2 to something higher! But then I'd be even more astonished if they could answer that at all, bearing in mind they're all dead, so their opinions shouldn't hold too much grip over us. The fact they saw states not individuals as the "units" of the US relevant to a presidential election at least indicates another perspective is possible. Doesn't dictate we need to follow, nor does it follow if they saw the future they'd change their own minds.
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html
A high proportion of the remaining votes in Arizona will come from Maricopa County, where Biden has held a small edge. I didn't calculate the numbers but it looks to me as though that will get him over the line with a victory margin of about 10,000. That assumes of course that the votes break along the same lines as before, which is not necessarily true.
I have no idea how votes are likely to break in NC but assume the margin currently in Trump's favour is far too big to be overhauled.
Am I broadly correct?
I'm expecting to lose but it might get close enough for me to trade out.
I wouldn't expect legal challenges or recounts to delay settlement. So, 5% interest over five days or so. Sounds ok to me.