Is U.S. News & World Report an acceptable source?
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...se-votes-count-least-in-the-electoral-college
For the Love of........Can this be LAST tour for Rodham, please !?
- Thread starter IowaNiceHawk
- Start date
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...se-votes-count-least-in-the-electoral-college
Lol, you got me. The Achilles Heel of the plan espoused by me and that quack professor of applied mathematics from the University of Washington is that you have to use actual numbers from each election in order to accurately assess the relative electoral weight of any two states. Every goddamn time we elect a new President we have to type two new numbers into the spreadsheet in order to figure out what happened.
Want to know how Wyoming compared to California in 2016? You have to plug in the number of people who voted in those states in 2016. What, you want to know how they compared in 2012 as well? Bloody hell, now I have to type in the vote totals from 2012 too. It never ends.
But not any more, because you hold the key to data entry freedom. Now it's your turn to dazzle me by showing me how your omnipotent system can accurately compare the power of a vote in one state to the power of a vote in another state without ever having to update the data to reflect changes in the numbers of eligible voters in those states.
This is gonna be even better than that knife that can cut through a metal can and still be sharp enough to slice a tomato cleanly.
I've got my popcorn ready. Will I need my 3D glasses?
Just so we're clear, you now understand that if we're doing a general comparison of voter power across the states, we don't use the number of voters from a single election. Is that about right?
That's a yes or no question, btw.
No, we're not clear on that.
And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your system can be used to accurately compare the power of a vote in one state to the power of a vote in another state without ever having to update the data to reflect changes in the numbers of eligible voters.
Hurry up, this popcorn is making me thirsty.
Well..if we're not clear then you have yet to meet your challenge. Still looking, I trust.
Nope. I don't give a shit about your challenge.
Here's the bottom line - if you believe your method is superior then you need to demonstrate that it's superior. Your chief criticism of my method is your belief that it can only be applied to a single specific election because the number of people who vote changes from one election to the next.
Show me that your system can be implemented to accurately compare the power of a vote in one state relative to the power of a vote in another state over multiple elections without having to account for the fact that the number of eligible voters also changes from one election to the next. Show me how your method overcomes this fatal flaw and I will convert.
Of course you don't...now. You already know you're wrong. I told you that you would be.
Here's the bottom line - I never said my way was "superior". I said it was how it would be done to give a general theoretical strength between states. It's the way it IS done...as you've, no doubt, discovered. If you're asked in 2017 how much more a vote in Wyoming...or Delaware...or Vermont...counts over a vote in California...well...only an idiot goes back to the last election and pulls up numbers, does the calculations, and says, "Well...in 2016 it was this". Most people actually use total population (per capita) because 1) it's quick and easy, 2) it gives a good general sense of the imbalance and 3) it's how electoral votes are doled out. If they wanted to be more precise they might look up eligible voters...or registered voters...but most don't. As I stated so many posts ago...
I'll let you return to your deceased equine flogging now.
Claims he never said his method was superior, then says only an idiot would use my method...in the same paragraph. You just can't stop yourself from lying. You have lied repeatedly and falsely accused me of lying throughout this thread. You're lying about lying.
And LOL @ your reasoning. Only an idiot would use my method. Only a moron would quantify the relative power of a vote in one state compared to a vote in another state using actual data from actual voters who cast actual ballots in the actual election that was held less than a year ago. Only a slackjawed troglodyte would use data that is 100% accurate and easily accessible in seconds on countless websites to determine precisely the difference between states. Why would anyone want to be that accurate? Why would they do that when you can just sort of spitball it and get a "general sense" of the disparity by using population figures that include 186 million people who don't/can't even vote?
Your method is good for exactly one thing - to determine how many citizens are represented by each elector. But if you want to know the relative power of one vote cast in a given state compared to a vote cast in another state then my method is the better way to go, regardless of whether you're talking about one election or several elections. For example, when comparing Wyoming and California using my method, the relative power over the past 5 elections dating back to Bush/Gore in 2000 ranges from a low of 2.698 to a high of 2.989. Using population figures from last year, HuffPo claimed the disparity was 3.6. The amount of total deviation in my results across 5 elections over a 16 year period was less than the amount that your method was off just last year alone.
I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to emerge from behind a door to point out the camera hidden in the a/c vent and tell me I'm being punk'd. "Tarheel isn't really this f**king stupid," Ashton probably would say. "He's just messin' with you."
Want to know how Wyoming compared to California in 2016? You have to plug in the number of people who voted in those states in 2016. What, you want to know how they compared in 2012 as well? Bloody hell, now I have to type in the vote totals from 2012 too. It never ends.
TJ.......,Now I don't know how you got here, but the electoral college is weighted heavily in the favor of lower population states like Wyoming because EACH and EVERY state has 2 Senators and therefore that vote is heavily favoring small population states. California is not represented equally to Wyoming because of that. The Dakotas, Nebby, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Nevada and others have a disproportionate affect on the electoral college.
TJ.......,Now I don't know how you got here, but the electoral college is weighted heavily in the favor of lower population states like Wyoming because EACH and EVERY state has 2 Senators and therefore that vote is heavily favoring small population states. California is not represented equally to Wyoming because of that. The Dakotas, Nebby, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Nevada and others have a disproportionate affect on the electoral college.
All of that...and I'm still right. Otherwise you would show someone...ANYONE...using your method to demonstrate voting imbalances in something other than a specific election. But they don't. So sad to see you flailing wildly like this. Here's the deal...until you can produce what I asked you to produce, I'm done with you. Prove me wrong if you can...it shouldn't be much of a challenge for someone as smart as you. LOL
I already explained that in post 169. Read it again.
I can take the numbers from the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and see that one vote in Wyoming was worth 2.698 votes in California. If I lock in 2.698 as my benchmark value for the indefinite future, it's closer to the actual results of every election over the past 16 years than the values from your method are to the actual results of any election over the past 16 years.
My method is simply more accurate, even across multiple elections. The reason it's more accurate is that your method incorporates millions of people who don't vote. And as we all well know, the power of a vote not cast is zero regardless of what method you're using.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread but it probably got snowed under so I'll mention it again. California is under-represented in comparison to Wyoming, but that's because every state is under-represented in comparison to Wyoming. When compared to the rest of the country as a whole, California is actually right about where they ought to be. Based on actual votes cast as a percentage of the total popular vote, California deserved about 55.8 electoral votes in 2016. They currently have 55 and will most likely get bumped up to at least 56 when electoral votes are reapportioned following the 2020 census.
I feel like I am better because I am an Iowan. I take pride in my state. If you are ashamed of living here, then move.
No, he is clearly insulting all Iowan. You are the ignorant one who can't figure that out because of your partisan bias.
I am for small states like Iowa. Why do you hate Iowa so much? You might as well move to North Carolina to be with your best buddy Cartoon.
That's the deplorable view I was talking about. Thanks for admitting you are an Iowa supremacist who doesn't believe in equality for all Americans. You should be ashamed of the way your brain works.
Shouldn't you have a job and be a productive member of society. It took you like 2 minutes to post this garbage.
I am proud of being an Iowa and yes I think Iowans are better than other people. Take pride in being an Iowa.
Because there are too many stupid states out there like California, Texas, NY, north carolina, Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii. The list goes on and on. Iowa is the best and I take pride in that fact.
You don't know what pride is. Pride does not mean being a supremacist. You are being an overt bigot here. You should receive no respect from decent people.
Coming from the guy who spends his whole life on here. Maybe if you got out and experienced social interactions, instead of hiding in your water closet with your computer, you would be able to provide an informed judgement.
I must say it's nice to have a villain who accepts that they are evil and openly embraces their bigotry. I bet your robes are nicely pressed.
I take Pride in being an Iowan. Sorry that you don't. Since when is taking Pride in your own state consider bigotry? This is why no one takes you seriously, you are the boy who cried wolf.
By your definition, the gay community is a bunch of bigots, since they take pride in themselves. Being proud of who you are does not equal bigotry.
When you think you are better than others because you live in Iowa and that you deserve more power over other people because of your status, you have become a bigot.
You got checkmated, you lost! Just like your queen Hillary. Maybe you too can write a book blaming everyone else. I'll give you a bit of advice, the only person to blame is staring you back in the mirror.
Oh how original and creative. Took you only a couple weeks to come up with it as well.
