Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 2:04*pm, wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:34 am, riverman wrote:

On Jul 31, 11:57 am, rw wrote:
I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. ...

Yes, yes, yes. Of course we can read, and your point is correct,

No, the point is not even correct, it is simply one way to spin the
data. I could just as easily say that since both California and Alaska
use winner-take-all for selecting electoral college members, and any
single voter might be _the_ vote that swings the whole state, then a
single voter in California has 15 times as much "power" as a single
Alaskan voter when it comes to selecting a President.


And your point would be correct also. As would the point that Alaskan
votes means squat when compared to Texan votes, because there are a
lot more Texas votes. It is, as you say, how the data is spun. None of
it represents the big picture accurately when spun alone, and ANY
system has it faults, so merely being faulted is not a sign that the
system is wrong. The real question is: "What's a better proposal?"


The high horse has foundered and the only thing left to do is to
humanely put it down. :-)


On roff? LOL

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you
****ing read?


You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't
you ****ing read?


You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 5:25*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has
three times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that
Alaska AS AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't
you ****ing read?

You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

--riverman

Alaska for Obama?
 

On Jul 31, 12:52 pm, riverman wrote:

And your point would be correct also.

How postmodern of you. ;-)

Jon.

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is
worth only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.
Like I said, that's a spurious argument. All electoral votes
are indeed equal but California gets 55, Texas 34 and Alaska
only 3. The states can apportion their electors any damn way
they please but one Alaskan vote does not have more "power"
than one Californian vote. Quite the contrary.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic
system based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It
wasn't designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13
states to ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of
a person for the purpose of congressional representation.
We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and
the way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be
that only white male property owners were allowed to vote.
Ah, for the good old days. Any system that gets us as far as
possible away from one man, one vote is fine by me. Smoke filled
rooms were positively enlightened compared to what's become of
American politics. You want to talk about fair ? What in the hell
is fair about one man studying the issues, reading the position
papers, in short doing his duty as an informed citizen getting
exactly as many votes as the moron who can't name a single justice
of the Supreme Court and pulls the lever for whoever his preacher
endorses ? The ancients cited the biggest problem with democracy
as the "tyranny of the majority", the founding fathers thought of
it as mob rule and something to be absolutely avoided. I agree
with the founding fathers, democracy should be avoided.

Except for the House of Representatives, there it's acceptable. ;-)

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

That falls under the heading "tyranny of the majority" and living
in Illinois where Chicago rules the vote I can certainly relate.

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

Those founding fathers are looking smarter and smarter. Of course
our constitution is a do over, the Articles of Confederation were
pretty much unworkable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:

Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

--riverman

Ken would like to be the dictator.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Alaska for Obama?
 

rw wrote:
riverman wrote:
Again, rw, its easy to find fault with the system because ALL systems
are compromises, therefore they contain 'faults'. What system would
YOU propose?

Ken would like to be the dictator.

****in' A.

I shall be called Philosopher King Lord Ken, His Royal Munificence
the Prince of Laphroaig, the Earl of Zinfandel and the Gratefulest
of Deadheads.

But all you guys who aren't from njflyfishing.com can still call
me Ken ... or asshole ... whatever. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Alaska for Obama?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

I shall be called Philosopher King Lord Ken, His Royal Munificence
the Prince of Laphroaig, the Earl of Zinfandel and the Gratefulest
of Deadheads.

But all you guys who aren't from njflyfishing.com can still call
me Ken ... or asshole ... whatever. ;-)

Yeah, well you know we weren't waiting for permission don't you.....?

g

Alaska for Obama?
 

riverman wrote:

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

I'm a rural denizen, as well. About as rural as you can get -- Custer
County, Idaho.

I'm also a liberal or progressive or whatever term you prefer. So is the
majority of my community of Stanley, population 100 as of the last
census. In 2004 Stanley went for Kerry three to two.

Idaho is a solidly Republican state, of course. My second congressional
district is even redder than district one. (Idaho only has two
congressional districts.)

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.

You don't like democracy because the urban majority does things you
don't like. I dislike anti-democracy because the rural majority does
things I don't like. It cuts both ways.

I say let's have democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.

Or Ken can be dictator. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.