Does McCain already have the Election won?

View threads from the forum's history which have been deemed important, noteworthy, or which do a good job of covering frequently raised issues.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

xerex
Jedi Knight
Posts: 848
Joined: 2005-06-17 08:02am

Post by xerex » 2008-09-09 08:57pm

Ender

the plan needs ALL states to join in to activate it.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/onesixth.php

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Ender » 2008-09-09 09:02pm

xerex wrote:
Omega18 wrote:
Ender wrote:Does this take into account the number of states such as Illinois who have tied their electoral votes to the popular vote?
I'm 99.99% sure that you're wrong about this and at most some states have said they will do this if enough states also comply to ensure the candidate with the most popular votes always wins the election.
he's wrong about it.
Jesus christ, is it really too hard for you mouth breathers to type in www.google.com?

Link 6<-- The bill itself
Link 7 <-- The history of the bill
Link 8
Link 9
Link 10

I got over 3 million of these things and I already wrote my English paper. I can literally do this all fucking night.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Ender » 2008-09-09 09:08pm

xerex wrote:Ender

the plan needs ALL states to join in to activate it.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/onesixth.php
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential
electors in each member state in any year in which this
agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively
possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
Try reading the bill itself
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

xerex
Jedi Knight
Posts: 848
Joined: 2005-06-17 08:02am

Post by xerex » 2008-09-09 09:38pm

Ender wrote:
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential
electors in each member state in any year in which this
agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively
possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
ok I was wrong - it doesnt require ALL states to join -

it required it to have been enacted by July 20th in sufficent states to have at least 270 electoral votes.


so ender, was it enacted in states having 270 electoral votes ? if not its void.

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-09 10:39pm

While the person on the other side may not exactly be the best at expressing it, Ender, he is in fact correct.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Only 50 of the 270 Electoral Votes required are in play, although Californians are on their way to adopting it. Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington adopted it but were vetoed. Several other states have had it not pass.

However, the point is that the NPVIC has not met a 50%+ majority of electoral votes, and is nowhere near it.

Thus, popular vote will not influence electoral vote this year.

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan » 2008-09-09 10:46pm

I would much prefer a system by which electoral votes in each state were allocated by percentage of popular vote. Though NPV's proposal democratises the EV somewhat, it's still based on a winner-take-all paradigm instead of proportional representation.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-09 10:51pm

Patrick Degan wrote:I would much prefer a system by which electoral votes in each state were allocated by percentage of popular vote. Though NPV's proposal democratises the EV somewhat, it's still based on a winner-take-all paradigm instead of proportional representation.
How so? From what I see, it appears that the NPV is done in a 3 step mathod.

1. Presidential Election goes on.
2. Winner of the Popular Vote on national level determined.
3. Compact States award every single EV to the winner of the Popular Vote.
4. Non-Compact States award EV to state vote winner.

Thus why 270 EV is enough, because once 270 EV are in the compact, the Popular Vote winner will win 100% of those EVs every single time and thus win the election no matter who the non-Popular Vote states are won by.

The only alternative I see is to divide the entire country into EV districts and have each EV district have a winner, which is just the same problem as electoral votes right now on a smaller scale- a republican in Washington DC's vote no matter what just does not count.

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan » 2008-09-10 12:05am

MRDOD wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:I would much prefer a system by which electoral votes in each state were allocated by percentage of popular vote. Though NPV's proposal democratises the EV somewhat, it's still based on a winner-take-all paradigm instead of proportional representation.
How so? From what I see, it appears that the NPV is done in a 3 step mathod.

1. Presidential Election goes on.
2. Winner of the Popular Vote on national level determined.
3. Compact States award every single EV to the winner of the Popular Vote.
4. Non-Compact States award EV to state vote winner.

Thus why 270 EV is enough, because once 270 EV are in the compact, the Popular Vote winner will win 100% of those EVs every single time and thus win the election no matter who the non-Popular Vote states are won by.

The only alternative I see is to divide the entire country into EV districts and have each EV district have a winner, which is just the same problem as electoral votes right now on a smaller scale- a republican in Washington DC's vote no matter what just does not count.
Not quite. I've outlined this scheme in other threads. The basic idea is that electoral vote allocation is based upon the percentage of the state's total popular vote, rounded to the nearest ten. So that in a state with six electoral votes up for grabs, if the vote were split evenly or near-evenly, each candidate would wind up with three EVs apiece. If one wins by a clear majority of 55% or better, then candidate A gets four and candidate B gets two EVs. In a state with an odd number of electoral votes, say, 25, the popular vote winner gets 13 and the runner-up gets 12. If the vote was dead-even or so close to it as to make no difference, one vote is declared neutral and the remainder would be divided evenly, or that one vote would be granted to a third place candidate.

Under this scheme, a presidential contest becomes a 50-state fight because each and every state becomes important to collect enough EVs to win in the College and in close elections the total EV count nationwide becomes critical, and no one state or group of states can deliver it in one go. Once, I analysed the disputed 2000 election assuming this scheme in place of winner-take-all. The results came out —if memory serves— with Gore netting 258 electoral votes to Bush's 244, with the remaining 36 going to Nader, and the election gets thrown into the House of Representatives, where it's decided far more constitutionally than the farce delivered to us by the Supreme Court.

This scheme operates independently of congressional districts because it's simply a straight mathematical division based upon proportional representation in the statewide presidential vote.

The NPV scheme has several defects, one of which is that it runs smack into the constitutional prohibition against states forming "compacts" amongst one another which may interfere with federalism, and also allows it to operate whether all 50 states are involved or not. It also essentially is still a winner-take-all mechanism, just on slightly different terms than the present system.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-10 01:43am

The problem is that a New York Republican still does not matter to anything but the philosophical idea of having voter- in this regard, the popular vote system makes it so that all votes actually do matter.

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-10 01:45am

Ghetto Edit- Or rather, how about a Wyoming Democrat? It would take about 40,000 votes to earn a single EV, so if 20,000 people in Wyoming vote for Obama but all the rest for McCain, said people still don't count in that system. In the NPV system, the state totals don't matter at all.

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan » 2008-09-10 02:01am

I disagree. First, I don't see how you come to the formulation that people "don't count" in a proportional system, since under winner-take-all, if 29,000 people in Wyoming voted Obama but 33,000 voted McCain, that means McCain gets all of Wyoming's 3 electoral votes, Obama zero and 29,000 Obama voters definitely "don't count". Under the outlined system, McCain gets two votes but Obama still gets one, which means his voters did gain him one more electoral vote to his tally instead of none, and the popular vote is influencing the electoral vote —since each candidate has to work to pick up as many votes in each and every state he can get his hands on to help collect his 270 nationwide in order to win in the electoral college. NPV has the same defect you decry, only it simply shifts the ground on the winner-take-all mechanism from one pathway to another.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-10 02:14am

Patrick Degan wrote:I disagree. First, I don't see how you come to the formulation that people "don't count" in a proportional system, since under winner-take-all, if 29,000 people in Wyoming voted Obama but 33,000 voted McCain, that means McCain gets all of Wyoming's 3 electoral votes, Obama zero and 29,000 Obama voters definitely "don't count". Under the outlined system, McCain gets two votes but Obama still gets one, which means his voters did gain him one more electoral vote to his tally instead of none. NPV has the same defect you decry, only it simply shifts the ground on the winner-take-all mechanism from one pathway to another.
Because the popular vote matters. In the NPV system, whoever wins the popular vote wins. Period.

Example: 240,000 wyoming residents vote, being split into 80,000 margins for a single EV.

If 40,000 Wyomingans vote for Obama but 200,000 for McCain, here's what happens:

NPV: Obama count is incremented by 40,000, McCain count is incremented by 200k. Both count equally towards determining who is the President of the US (not the president of wyoming, or the president of the swing states).

Your model: Obama gets 0 EV, McCain gets 3 EV. Obama voters in Wyoming still do not matter unless the election is more contentuous.

Clearly, the NPV model is unfair because the EV of a state don't go to whoever the state wants but whom the nation wants. :roll:

I think either you didn't read it or didn't understand the idea behind it- the states are made irrelevant by the fact that they all vote en-bloc to the winner of the popular vote. That's the whole point- EV isn't supposed to be proportional to popular opinion, or else it's just a grainier measure of popular opinion.

Why bother taking the popular vote totals of a state and then dividing them into blocks of 80,000 when you can just look at the popular vote for the nation, and whomever has the highest number of votes is the winner.

Is there a reason behind turning an election of 300,000,000 people that is 50 elections of unequally sized blocks into an election of 538 more equally sized elections? Why not just make it a single election and stop futzing about with grainy count totals when the popular vote is clearly whoever wins.

The Compact method of bloc voting the EV is meant to destroy the EV as a unit of measure by making it nonfunctional, not to divide up EV in accordance with public opinion, for the reason of the flaw I just pointed out above.

Another flaw: Your method, every single state must join or else that state's votes being non-proportional would imbalance the system. Or, it would take a constitutional amendment. NPV method, only about 20-30 states must join until their bloc vote for the popular winner will decide the election every time. So it either takes 50 states agreeing (something that almost never happens) or a constitutional amendment- and if you're going to constitutionally amend the process, why keep the EV in the first place just to make it a grainier popular vote?

User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Justforfun000 » 2008-09-10 02:20am

I don't believe I've seen anyone yet, but out of curiosity, are there any members of the board that are supporting McCain? Conversely, are there any people who just do NOT support Obama and will pick anything but? Would love to hear some opinions.

Obviously Obama is looking like the closest thing to a prince in this election for many people, but I was curious as to what even his supporters do not like about him and his policies. I've read a few posts saying they don't agree with everything he campaigns, but he's still the best choice.

Are there any general (or specific) flaws in his platform that have some people disgruntled?
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie » 2008-09-10 02:34am

Well, he did submit to wiretapping for political expidency- that earned him quite a few disgruntlements from this board- it appears that he can drop his idealism at times in order to avoid being caught as the only sane man in an asylum.

User avatar
Metatwaddle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Contact:

Post by Metatwaddle » 2008-09-10 02:58am

Obama has frequently championed wind, solar and natural gas, but has been quiet on the issue of nuclear energy. That's my biggest problem with him, but I'm still voting for him.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower

User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
Contact:

Post by SirNitram » 2008-09-10 03:04am

Metatwaddle wrote:Obama has frequently championed wind, solar and natural gas, but has been quiet on the issue of nuclear energy. That's my biggest problem with him, but I'm still voting for him.
If there is one thing you can trust a politician to do, frankly, it's be loyal to the corporations which helped him out. And the ones that did that are nuclear power ones. I think that's all we need to know: He won't say it on the campaign(It's, well, radioactive to your votes), but I expect he'll embark on it.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.
Contact:

Post by CaptainChewbacca » 2008-09-10 03:05am

Justforfun000 wrote:I don't believe I've seen anyone yet, but out of curiosity, are there any members of the board that are supporting McCain? Conversely, are there any people who just do NOT support Obama and will pick anything but? Would love to hear some opinions.
I like McCain, and I love sarah palin so much it hurts. I just keep quiet about it around here. Heck, the day she was announced, I sent McCain $100.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage

User avatar
Superman
Pink Foamin' at the Mouth
Posts: 9690
Joined: 2002-12-16 12:29am
Location: Metropolis

Post by Superman » 2008-09-10 03:09am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I love sarah palin so much it hurts.
You just want to bone her.
Image

User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Justforfun000 » 2008-09-10 03:10am

I like McCain, and I love sarah palin so much it hurts. I just keep quiet about it around here. Heck, the day she was announced, I sent McCain $100.
Really? wow.

How do you feel about Obama?
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

User avatar
Metatwaddle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Contact:

Post by Metatwaddle » 2008-09-10 03:15am

SirNitram wrote:
Metatwaddle wrote:Obama has frequently championed wind, solar and natural gas, but has been quiet on the issue of nuclear energy. That's my biggest problem with him, but I'm still voting for him.
If there is one thing you can trust a politician to do, frankly, it's be loyal to the corporations which helped him out. And the ones that did that are nuclear power ones. I think that's all we need to know: He won't say it on the campaign(It's, well, radioactive to your votes), but I expect he'll embark on it.
I didn't realize nuclear power companies had helped him out. That's certainly promising.
Well, he did submit to wiretapping for political expidency- that earned him quite a few disgruntlements from this board- it appears that he can drop his idealism at times in order to avoid being caught as the only sane man in an asylum.
I forgot about that one - that bothered me too.

As far as being the only sane man in the asylum, there were plenty of people who made a big stink about FISA and telecom immunity. Chris Dodd was probably the most vocal, but Biden was right there too. It's not like he would have been standing alone.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower

User avatar
The Yosemite Bear
Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
Posts: 35211
Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
Location: Dave's Not Here Man
Contact:

Post by The Yosemite Bear » 2008-09-10 03:52am

you know the ad down below, had one saying "whose more likely to cheat, McCain or Obama" which is kinda obvious, since McCain has already cheated on one wife.
Image

The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin

User avatar
Xisiqomelir
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: 2003-01-16 09:27am
Location: Valuetown
Contact:

Post by Xisiqomelir » 2008-09-10 12:00pm

Image

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70027
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » 2008-09-10 12:32pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:I don't believe I've seen anyone yet, but out of curiosity, are there any members of the board that are supporting McCain? Conversely, are there any people who just do NOT support Obama and will pick anything but? Would love to hear some opinions.
I like McCain, and I love sarah palin so much it hurts. I just keep quiet about it around here. Heck, the day she was announced, I sent McCain $100.
That's because you're an imbecile who would vote for a fundie no matter how much of a lunatic he is. We're talking about the kind of person who picks a vice president on impulse, the way most of us buy candy bars at the grocery store checkout lane, and the kind of VP candidate whose greatest accomplishment as governor was to convince men to give her money.

The reason you "keep quiet" about it is that you know any arguments you bring up in defense of the McCain ticket would get skewered, and you're the kind of moron who thinks that just means we're "biased" so there's no point bringing it up.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod » 2008-09-10 12:40pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote: I like McCain, and I love sarah palin so much it hurts. I just keep quiet about it around here. Heck, the day she was announced, I sent McCain $100.
Let me guess, you completely avoid any thread discussing McCain too just so it doesn't shatter your fragile worldview?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."

Image

ImageImage

User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.
Contact:

Post by CaptainChewbacca » 2008-09-10 12:43pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
I like McCain, and I love sarah palin so much it hurts. I just keep quiet about it around here. Heck, the day she was announced, I sent McCain $100.
Really? wow.

How do you feel about Obama?
I think he's a nice guy with a good heart who has some fundamentally different beliefs from me about the role of government in society.
That's because you're an imbecile who would vote for a fundie no matter how much of a lunatic he is. We're talking about the kind of person who picks a vice president on impulse, the way most of us buy candy bars at the grocery store checkout lane, and the kind of VP candidate whose greatest accomplishment as governor was to convince men to give her money.
She was the mayor of Alaska's fifth-largest city, got an oil pipeline built in the face of massive corruption, ran a commercial fishing fleet for six years, and somehow managed to have a nominally functional family. What's Obama done?
The reason you "keep quiet" about it is that you know any arguments you bring up in defense of the McCain ticket would get skewered, and you're the kind of moron who thinks that just means we're "biased" so there's no point bringing it up.
The reason I 'keep quiet' is I don't want to have to defend what I believe all hours of the day and night. That's my perrogative as a member of this board, and I cannot and will not be dragged into defending Christianity or Conservatism on the internet's public stage, not just because I'm not qualified to but because I really don't have the inclination.

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them stupid, and thinking you know everything you need to know about life doesn't make you smart.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage

Locked