REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Electoral College 2020

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, February 20, 2020 15:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 322
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 9, 2020 2:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


It might seem early, but I want to start filling this in and updating it.

From prior cycles, we've seen that a large portion of the picture is already known - most states are not in play.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 9, 2020 3:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I should probably start with this useful data.

Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15% of those who voted.

In 2016, Trump beat Hilliary, with only 54,996 votes (in MI and PA) deciding the race. This means that if the right 27,498 voters had changed, Hilliary would have won. (5,352 in MI and 22,146 in PA).
Quote:


Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.

Hilliary had a 1.51% margin in MN.


Let us review 2016.
Quote:


Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors. 13 States.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.

Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.

Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.

Groups 1-5 all voted for Trump. 235 Electors. 25 States.
Quote:

6. 40 Electors.
CO*, VA, OH*.
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.


Group 6: OH maintained it's record of voting for every winner since 1963. The other 2 remained on the Dark Side. Trump 253 EV, 26 States. Hilliary 22 EV, 2 States.
Quote:


Group 7. 57 Electors.
NM*, MN, WI, IA, NV*, PA.
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.


Group 7 split: WI, IA, PA went to Trump, the others remained on the Dark Side. Trump 289 EV, 29 States. Hilliary 43 EV, 5 States.
Quote:


Group 8. 31 Electors.
MI, OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.


Group 8: MI voted Trump in 2016, the rest stayed on the Dark Side. Trump 305 EV, 30 States.
Quote:


Group 9. 175 Electors. 12 States.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, shunning prosperity, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.


Group 9 voted Hilliary in 2016.
Quote:


States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979, and OH since 1963.

OH and FL were the only asterisk States to vote for the winner.
Quote:


Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states with the largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.



Trump in 2016: EV 304, 30 STATES.
AK, ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, WV, KY, TN, NC, AL, MS, GA, SC, FL.
Hilliary: EV 227, 20 States.
WA, OR, CA, NV, HI, MN, IL, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, MA, CT, RI, VT, NH, ME, CO, NM.
2 Electors from TX did not vote for Trump.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 9, 2020 3:38 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


So, how this data works moving forward in 2020:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15% of those who voted.

Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.

Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.

TX 9% in 2016
Quote:


Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.

GA 5.1% in 2016
Quote:


Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.

FL 1.2% in 2016

Groups 1-5: 235 Electors, 25 States.


I'll insert a Group 10 here - the States which went to Trump but trended Dem.

OH - 18 EV. 8.1% to Trump.
WI - 10 EV. 0.77%
IA - 6 EV. 9.4%
PA - 20 EV 0.71%
MI - 16 EV 0.22%

If Trump retains OH and IA, that adds up to 259 Electors.
Another 11 Electoral Votes wins him another 4 years.
Quote:


6. 40 22 Electors.
CO*, VA, OH*.
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.

CO 4.9%, VA 5.3%
Quote:


Group 7. 57 21 Electors.
NM*, MN, WI, IA, NV*, PA.
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.

NM 8.2%, MN 1.51%, NV 2.4%
Quote:



Group 8. 31 15 Electors.
MI, OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.

OR 11%, NH 0.37%, ME 2.96%
Quote:



Group 9. 175 Electors.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, shunning prosperity, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.


States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979, and OH since 1963.

Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states with the largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.


The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.


2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.


Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


You have far more energy to write this than I have to read it at the moment! (I'm still wheezing, coughing, and dragging anchor from when I had the flu 5 weeks ago.)

I was going to do a slightly different calculation, not about actual elections but about the electoral college in general, which was to compare House representation v electors, just to see which states are over-represented or underrepresented in terms of electors, and by how much. It doesn't make a difference to what I think, btw, it's just a matter of curiosity.

I think the electoral college is fine and basically democratic. What's NOT fine imo is the 'winner-take-all' assignment of votes for all but 2 states. That strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

I hope to get back to your posts in a bit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.


The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.


2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.


Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?




I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 14, 2020 3:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
You have far more energy to write this than I have to read it at the moment! (I'm still wheezing, coughing, and dragging anchor from when I had the flu 5 weeks ago.)

I was going to do a slightly different calculation, not about actual elections but about the electoral college in general, which was to compare House representation v electors, just to see which states are over-represented or underrepresented in terms of electors, and by how much. It doesn't make a difference to what I think, btw, it's just a matter of curiosity.

I think the electoral college is fine and basically democratic. What's NOT fine imo is the 'winner-take-all' assignment of votes for all but 2 states. That strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

I hope to get back to your posts in a bit.

I don't think I understand what you mean.

You say House, and also Electors. Not sure of your comparison.
The House has Representatives, which are apportioned based upon population - the more populous States have more Representatives, the least populous States only have 1. The number of Electors for a State are determined by adding up the number of Congresspersons for that State - 2 Senators plus the number of Representatives. Except D.C., which has 3 Electors.

If you can explain what you are curious about, I might already have a post which covers the subject.
Over-represented or under-represented in what way? As in 2010, or as in 2020?


USA is a Republic. A federation of States. Most States have their Electors vote as a block, all for the candidate who carried the State. Two States have chosen to diminish the Republic form of Representative Government by pandering to small but densely concentrated cities, and split the vote in order to avoid the Great Compromise which was made in what is known as.....The Great Compromise.

Is the thread title confusing? Should it say something else? Or more?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2020 4:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.


The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I'm not betting on VA flipping. Or being a critical State for Trump. That's the D.C. suburbs. Swamp creatures and DEEP STATE galore.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2020 5:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


It's definitely not a critical state for Trump. I think it's important that Trump win both the popular vote and decimate the Democrats in the Electoral College as well this time though. Democrats need to learn a lesson and stop doubling down on stupid and blaming everybody else for how terrible they've become.



Virginia is easily in play. Moody's prediction models show Trump taking Virginia even if voter turnout is average. The only model that shows Trump losing Virginia is if voter turnout is "historical maximum"


If you've been paying any attention to the Democrats now, that is an extremely unlikely scenario. How many "X Candidate or Bust" comments and hashtags are out there now? One for every candidate.

I do believe we're on the verge of witnessing a historical collapse of a political party in the US.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2020 5:25 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I understand what you mean.

Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional.

AFAIK each state gets to determine how they run their elections and apportion the votes, as long as they meet minimum standards. But perhaps you know more about that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2020 2:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I understand what you mean.

Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional.

I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.

As you surely know, the number of Electors for a State is the number of members representativing it has in both chambers of Congress.

As a Republic, a Federation of States, the simplest method of tallying Election results is to count the total number of these States forming The Republic which a candidate won, and the greater total is the winner. For instance, Trump won 30 States of The Republic, and Hilliary garnered 20 States - so Trump was the winner.

I am imagining a few possibilities.

1. I don' think your are talking about the population shift in the past 9 years, since the last Apportionment of Representatives. Therefore, you must be talking about how the apportionment of Electors would be done based upon the 2010 Census.

2. Perhaps you are saying that if we ignore the Republic Federation of States and the Great Compromise, and switch to a Federation of Large Cities, then the Apportionment of Electors could be based on a common pool of 538 Electors. In other words, while the Representatives for the House are apportioned for 435 Representatives, the Electors would follow the same apportionment formula applied to all 538 Electors.


Is that what you are talking about?
Or something else?

If I had a table for what you are curious about, would you want that posted in this thread, or another?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:26 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.


The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I'm not betting on VA flipping. Or being a critical State for Trump. That's the D.C. suburbs. Swamp creatures and DEEP STATE galore.




Check this very, very, VERY left-leaning article and what they have to say about Virginia. It's mentioned once or twice earlier in the article, but the main point is found where the good stuff in left-leaning articles always is found... in the second to last paragraph.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/the-states-trump-might-plausib
ly-aim-to-flip-in-2020.html


Quote:

Unfortunately for the president, though, his current approval numbers are terrible in Minnesota (40/56) and New Hampshire (39/58). He’s doing a bit better, though hardly well, in Nevada (42/53) and Maine (44/53). Of all the potential target states, the one in which he’s doing best in terms of current popularity is Virginia, where he’s at 45/51. His campaign might actually target Virginia, since it’s pretty convenient to the White House.



And this article was written 6 months before Senator Marsden called 2nd Amendment supporters "little kids" and then rather than apologizing he came out and doubled down on it and called them "mentally ill".

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrat-says-second-amendment
-supporters-in-virginia-have-mental-issues


Quote:

Marsden supports red flag laws that allow courts the ability to seize guns from citizens temporarily if someone believes they are a danger to themselves or others.

"What people are upset with, and I can absolutely see their point of view, is that you have your guns removed from you, and then you have to go through the court process, spend money for a lawyer, to prove your innocence in order to get your rightfully owned guns back from the government," said Walter. "It's a guilty-before-innocent law."



He's not just being insulting by saying that. The laws he proposes will allow the government to enter your home in Virginia and take your guns if somebody believes you're a danger to yourself or others.

Ever heard of Twitter? Ask Sandmann what happens on Twitter.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.

A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.

A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.

So, does that mean my #2?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2020 5:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, does that mean my #2?

Almost, if I understand your formulation. My calculation would use the House of Representatives as the basis for proportional apportionment, including the exceptions already made for states that would mathematically have less than 1 representative by strictly mathematical proportionality, that get a minimum of 1 representative no matter what the mathematical calculation is.


But I'm not arguing for it, just to be clear.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:03 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, does that mean my #2?

Almost, if I understand your formulation. My calculation would use the House of Representatives as the basis for proportional apportionment, including the exceptions already made for states that would mathematically have less than 1 representative by strictly mathematical proportionality, that get a minimum of 1 representative no matter what the mathematical calculation is.


But I'm not arguing for it, just to be clear.

Try this thread:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63508&mid=10939
59#1093959


Is that what you are looking for?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2020 5:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.

Do you prefer 'Federation of Concentrated Population Centers' or Large Urban Centers?


Was the description confusing?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I wonder about the specifics and also the intended use. How large does something need to be to counted? Do you mean total metropolitan (of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns) population, or urban centers only? As a category, how does this lump together such diverse places as Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York into something meaningful?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I wonder about the specifics and also the intended use. How large does something need to be to counted? Do you mean total metropolitan (of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns) population, or urban centers only? As a category, how does this lump together such diverse places as Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York into something meaningful?

I have moved these questions to the other thread, where they belong.

This thread can get back on track.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
Sat, April 4, 2020 03:58 - 1072 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sat, April 4, 2020 03:35 - 4239 posts
Quote of the day
Fri, April 3, 2020 23:49 - 46 posts
Money money money, who can we trust to figure it out?
Fri, April 3, 2020 23:33 - 52 posts
Some Covid-19 thoughts
Fri, April 3, 2020 22:12 - 171 posts
If Covid-19 comes back as expected this fall...
Fri, April 3, 2020 22:07 - 15 posts
Chump was warned in 2017 a pandemic was likely and now 200k or more people are likely to die.
Fri, April 3, 2020 18:17 - 9 posts
The (Political) Science Behind Trump's Approval Bump
Fri, April 3, 2020 14:18 - 5 posts
In Memoriam of the 156,154 people in the world who died of soemthing else today...
Fri, April 3, 2020 05:14 - 3 posts
Canada's outlandish hair freezing contest
Thu, April 2, 2020 18:25 - 3 posts
Elections 2020
Thu, April 2, 2020 13:40 - 377 posts
Who, What is Zero Hedge
Wed, April 1, 2020 15:40 - 49 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL