Main > Everything Else
IQ vs Election Results
krick:
Here's one to make you think. Because of the way that the electoral college works, a Wyoming voter has almost four times the clout as one in Texas, California, or Florida:
http://www.instantrunoff.org/analysis/analysis_ei.html#anchor_ei
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: krick on November 08, 2004, 07:05:23 pm ---Here's one to make you think. Because of the way that the electoral college works, a Wyoming voter has almost four times the clout as one in Texas, California, or Florida:
--- End quote ---
You're right. It DID make me think.
It made me think - who else is in a similar position as WY. So I looked at the map a bit. Then, I was made to think something else. Why is it that WY is portrayed as having all that much more clout, when there's a few other "yellow" states in a similar position. You probably just "missed" the correlation of all these states being in similar positions: NH, VT, ME, RI, DE, DC, CT. Actually, the site you lifted that phrase from "missed" it.
What I was especially intrigued about was why you chose WY to compare those states to, when you can clearly see a STRIKING similarity with VT, and a similar comparison between some of those states.....once again, you help to demonstrate why we have an electoral college, and how it is readily apparent why we need this system.
Oh, I also notice you didn't happen to compare the electoral votes of CA to WY. Would that help to further demonstrate why your "results" are more than a bit skewed? Wyoming has how many electoral votes again? Was that 3? Hey, let's take a looky at how many CA has. HOLY CRAP! 55 electoral votes?!?!?
So by giving (to use your words) "almost four times the clout" there is the possibility to win....um......less than 1% of CA's vote? The skewing of power results in the massive addition of .... 3 .........that's right, THREE.......electoral votes. Simply staggering ::)
As a simple investigation would unearth, the only "fair" solution using current electoral college setups, as I see it, would be to INCREASE Texas' electoral college votes, because according to that website, Texas is more sorely UNDERrepresented than CA.
More votes in TX? Wonder if the winning margin would have been even larger than it was. What would THAT mean?
Each side seems to see magical results in "stats" they cull from spurious studies and polls.
Under the system which was good enough to elect Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, W won. I had to live through 8 years of Clinton, now I have to live with 8 years of Bush. One way sucked for me, the other way doesn't. I'm still alive, the country is still in one piece - your chance to change the States is over, until you GET over it and can honestly look at why you lost, you're destined to continue to get the same results - each and every time.
Talk about divisive ::) The unwillingness to accept that you lost and start to work towards getting your message accepted in 2 years only solidifies the 51% and the thought that they did the right thing and stopped your sour attitude from tainting the country they love.
DrewKaree:
51% of America is so bass-ackwards they voted to keep the man they think is doing a bang-up job in office! The 49% is going to have to do some breeding with the imbeciles to even out the proportions - it's only 2%, and I bet there's at LEAST 5% that ISN'T fugly enough to procreate with, so if that 49% gets crackin' they can change the tide next time....I heard it on TV that the dumber you are, the less it takes to control your mind and change it to the prevailing view....the "smarties" only have to get in the pants of the dopes, which shouldn't be too hard.
So 49% are smart AND good looking. 51% are dumb as rocks, with (let's just say) 50% of the dopes being good looking. Someone draw me up a map so I can use it for "proof" of my idea ::) I'll then demonstrate how, through sheer "smahts, Jen-nee", you guys can turn this country from over half dumb ugly simpletons to over half enlightened good looking weiners...er...winners ::)
If you guys weren't so "smart", your brains wouldn't be getting in the way of you figuring out this stellar solution yourselves :-X
TA Pilot:
Here's one to make you think. Because of the way that the electoral college works, a Wyoming voter has almost four times the clout as one in Texas, California, or Florida:
This is because the states, not the people, elect the President.
What do you think of the Senate, where the people of WY are even MORE over-represented?
We dont live in a democracy, folks. Its a representative republic. In our federal system, the people of smaller states have ALWAYS been over-represented - so the people of the larger states cant simply bend them over and take whaveter they want.
locash:
I don't think krick was attacking WY (although he might have been), rather I think his point was that the electoral college is flawed. If you accept the notion that our representative government is important to protect the minority from a tryannical majority(and I do), it is clear that a vote in WY should have more weight than a single vote in TX, CA, FL. However, what is not clear to me is why a WY vote should have more weight than a CO, ID or SD vote.
Incidently, it is somewhat amusing that the representative republic comes to the defense of the electoral college, while the will of the majority is sufficient to suppress gay marriage.