The new Primary Thread

[Arrian]

Cyclotron,

The process still matters to me, even though I agree with your position.

Ideology matters, but so does competence.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by snoopy369


That's entirely invalid logic yourself... Ohio, as an entity, has a net effect on the election of ABS(Rdel-Ddel). The fact that the election was decided by other states is irrelevant, as the election occurs concurrently - only Hawaii and to a lesser extent Alaska really have any negative effect from predetermined outcomes. (Can you imagine if Hawaii actually determined an election? ) Your vote is your vote, regardless of whether you win or lose, and it is your say.

I'm not seeing how it's invalid at all. Your point was that Ohio's 20 EC votes tipped the election in Bush's favor, and they enjoyed great power because of that. And yes, of course it was only because of the controversy in the state - Ohio didn't really decide anything, or at least, no moreso than any other state or combination of states that resulted in the math being the way it was. But my point is that splitting your state's EC votes doesn't change that. The winner is decided by total EC votes, so any given state can still tip the balance depending on the proportion of votes it gives for each candidate.

However, let's put it to you this way. Arrian is 50-50 between Obama and Clinton, or let's say 52-48 for Obama to make it interesting. He can either:
* Cast a vote for Obama
* Cast 0.52 for Obama and 0.48 for Clinton

If he does the latter, he ultimately reduces his net vote - his say - to 0.04. If everyone else casts 1 vote for one candidate, he is given practically no say in the election.

If Arrian, as an individual, can actually quantify his preferrence between candidates to that precise a number, and votes accordingly (assuming he can), he's functionally saying he doesn't really care who wins, and whatever minute amount he prefers Obama over Clinton is reflected in the net result of his vote. If he casts a full vote for Obama, then he's saying regardless of whatever he may feel inside, he's going to throw 100% of his support behind a single candidate.

However, EC votes are not individuals, but (supposedly) reflection of the vote of the people within the state. If a state's residents vote 52-48 in favor of one candidate, then it's clear that no overwhelming support of a single candidate exists within the state. The EC vote ought to reflect that.

[Kuciwalker]

As I said, the intelligence shouldn't even have been necessary. Whether Iraq possessed WMDs or not was immaterial; they had never attacked us before. Any supposed link with Al Qaeda could have been disproved by mere common sense.

This is obviously false.

[Kuciwalker]

If Arrian, as an individual, can actually quantify his preferrence between candidates to that precise a number, and votes accordingly

"Arrian" is a stand in for "Ohio", which can and does quantify its preference between presidential candidates once every four years.

[Kuciwalker]

However, EC votes are not individuals, but (supposedly) reflection of the vote of the people within the state. If a state's residents vote 52-48 in favor of one candidate, then it's clear that no overwhelming support of a single candidate exists within the state. The EC vote ought to reflect that.

The point was that a winner-take-all state has more power than one that allots electors proportionally. If everyone goes proportional we might as well just remove the EC and have a unified national election. (And, indeed, that is what we ought to do.)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If Arrian, as an individual, can actually quantify his preferrence between candidates to that precise a number, and votes accordingly

"Arrian" is a stand in for "Ohio", which can and does quantify its preference between presidential candidates once every four years.

So?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is obviously false.

In what way?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

However, EC votes are not individuals, but (supposedly) reflection of the vote of the people within the state. If a state's residents vote 52-48 in favor of one candidate, then it's clear that no overwhelming support of a single candidate exists within the state. The EC vote ought to reflect that.

The point was that a winner-take-all state has more power than one that allots electors proportionally. If everyone goes proportional we might as well just remove the EC and have a unified national election. (And, indeed, that is what we ought to do.)

Yes, I would have thought it was obvious that I was implying every state should go this way rather than just one.

Edit: I'd also favor straight proportional, but you can still have an EC system which overweights some states and not have it be winner-takes-all.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

However, EC votes are not individuals, but (supposedly) reflection of the vote of the people within the state. If a state's residents vote 52-48 in favor of one candidate, then it's clear that no overwhelming support of a single candidate exists within the state. The EC vote ought to reflect that.

The point was that a winner-take-all state has more power than one that allots electors proportionally. If everyone goes proportional we might as well just remove the EC and have a unified national election. (And, indeed, that is what we ought to do.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
In what way?

The "not-being-true" way.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
Zkrib,

- The fiscal conservative in me hates them all, and is prone to hijacking the debate and frothing at the mouth for an hour or two.

-Arrian

The fiscal conservative in you should be rioting against Bush's $3 trillion budget just a few years after he broke the $2 trillion mark for the first time in history. The he's decided to screw children and the elderly so he can give massive new no bid military contracts only makes it worse.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Yes, I would have thought it was obvious that I was implying every state should go this way rather than just one.

I would have thought it was obvious that I was contradicting you.

[snoopy369]

...

What is the fundamental effect on the election between Ohio having 20 votes proportionally allocated, and Ohio having 2 votes directly allocated?

Answer: The latter system gives Ohio more power in the election.

You have to think in terms of power ... there is no other way to think of this. Unless every other state goes proportional, Ohio would lose every bit of power it has in going proportional (if it's generally a 50/50 state). The only relevant factor in an election for President is how many votes a state puts forward for one candidate over another; putting some toward others simply weakens the state's power.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I would have thought it was obvious that I was contradicting you.

Contradicting what?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The "not-being-true" way.

It should have been obvious to most people that not only was there no extant connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that such a connection would have been outrageously ridiculous given the animosity between Saddam and fundies like bin Laden.

It should also be obvious that America had not been attacked by Iraq, nor threatened, nor was there any indication that we would be attacked or threatened, nor was there any logical reason for Iraq to attack or threaten us, nor did the capability exist for them to attack us.

What about that is false?