KipWellsFan Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 No sir, it is proportionate. I think that is where you are having your problem. In the state of Wyoming...a state with more cows then people...they have 3 Electoral College votes...count em', 3. In the state of Rhode Island...the smallest state in these United States, in terms of land size...they have 4 Electora College votes. The votes are proportinate to the number of citizens in each state...not square milage. Quoting Jackie Hayes No, it's not. North Dakota: 3 Electoral votes 633837 Population 0.0000047 electoral votes/person California: 55 Electoral votes 35484453 Population 0.0000016 electoral votes/person So. Does 47=16? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 (edited) North Dakota: 3 Electoral votes 633837 Population 0.0000047 electoral votes/person California: 55 Electoral votes 35484453 Population 0.0000016 electoral votes/person So. Does 47=16? Not directly proportionate according to this math--as one person in ND has 3x more electoral power than one person in Cali. A small difference but still...If I had all of the state's electoral votes and pops I could theoretically run an ANOVA to see if they mean vote per person vary according to state (with one group being low pop states and another group as high pop states). But, um, I'm not sure I'm that dorky Edited November 2, 2004 by ChiSoxyGirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Not directly proportionate according to this math--as one person in ND has 3x more electoral power than one person in Cali. A small difference but still...If I had all of the state's electoral votes and pops I could theoretically run an ANOVA to see if they mean vote per person vary according to state (with one group being low pop states and another group as high pop states). But, um, I'm not sure I'm that dorky As one dork to another... You mean just a difference in means test? The thing is, they will be different by design, so there's no need for statistics here. (Go ahead, the stats will tell you exactly the same thing, but plain old static math will give you the right answer.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Not directly proportionate according to this math--as one person in ND has 3x more electoral power than one person in Cali. A small difference but still...If I had all of the state's electoral votes and pops I could theoretically run an ANOVA to see if they mean vote per person vary according to state (with one group being low pop states and another group as high pop states). But, um, I'm not sure I'm that dorky Don't fool yourself, you're completely that dorky... I'm way too lazy to read this entire thread, but the hypothetical analysis you proposed seems like it might be better served with a good old fashioned science-fair-special chi-square kind of approached, wherein you could test whether the observed (actual) mean votes per person differs significantly from an expected value (derived from the states that are neither too low or too high). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 As one dork to another... You mean just a difference in means test? The thing is, they will be different by design, so there's no need for statistics here. (Go ahead, the stats will tell you exactly the same thing, but plain old static math will give you the right answer.) Yeah, but that wouldn't tell me if it was a systematic difference that might have occurred by chance, I guess I would run an ANOVA to see HOW different the two groups are, because my guess is it's pretty different...I would probably want to know effect size, power, and significance level--but then again, I'm a grad student and statistics owns me. I am a slave to stats.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Don't fool yourself, you're completely that dorky... I'm way too lazy to read this entire thread, but the hypothetical analysis you proposed seems like it might be better served with a good old fashioned science-fair-special chi-square kind of approached, wherein you could test whether the observed (actual) mean votes per person differs significantly from an expected value (derived from the states that are neither too low or too high). Hot spit! If I was so inclined I could do that by hand. Oh baby, am I sexy now or what? Rowr.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think a major reason why so many people feel the EC is unfair is because of 2000. The truth is the last time someone was elected president and didn't have the majority of the popular votes was in 1888. There were two other times that it failed: 1876 and 1824. That's 4 times out of 44 elections. That comes to 9.1% of the time it failed. And actually, I left out 9 elections because the popular votes for those 9 are unknown, but with them you have 53 elections meaning the EC failed 7.5% of the time. It's not perfect, but what system is? And the point is, the EC makes those smaller states matter. Smaller states' issues are far different from larger states' issues. If there was no EC, the candidates would focus on larger state issues and almost entirely neglect the small state issues because larger states have significantly more votes than small states. The EC levels the playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Hot spit! If I was so inclined I could do that by hand. Oh baby, am I sexy now or what? Rowr.... If you're really nice one day I'll post the lyrics to "Experimental Love" -- my statistical love song I wrote back while I was wading through biometry and experimental design grad courses. As proof of concept that an enertainer can definately be too erudite for his audience, I brought many coffee house music nights to a screetching halt with ditties like that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Drinking was mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't know if this is true for all states, but Indiana won't be selling alcohol tomorrow until 6 pm. Indiana is so weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well then, perhaps you would prefer the methods of Maine and Nebraska, wherein the state enforces a District System. The District System operates in this fashion...the state's electoral votes may be split between candidates. Maine and Nebraska apportion their votes between congressional district and two at-large votes, but neither state has ever split its electoral votes. I too prefer that system. I am not arguing the efficacy of the Electoral College. I am not even debating its "fairness." What I am debating is the fact the every state has a say in the outcome of the election. If Rhode Island didn't take part in the Electoral College, why would any candidate campaign that state. If it was me, I would spend far more time in California than Rhode Island. Yes, statisticly the electoral votes per person varies from state to state. The end justifies the means my friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think a major reason why so many people feel the EC is unfair is because of 2000. The truth is the last time someone was elected president and didn't have the majority of the popular votes was in 1888. There were two other times that it failed: 1876 and 1824. That's 4 times out of 44 elections. That comes to 9.1% of the time it failed. And actually, I left out 9 elections because the popular votes for those 9 are unknown, but with them you have 53 elections meaning the EC failed 7.5% of the time. It's not perfect, but what system is? And the point is, the EC makes those smaller states matter. Smaller states' issues are far different from larger states' issues. If there was no EC, the candidates would focus on larger state issues and almost entirely neglect the small state issues because larger states have significantly more votes than small states. The EC levels the playing field. Let me buy you a beer some time my man. Its all about efficacy...the EC is, in fact, efficent. Don't let 2000 scare you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Let me buy you a beer some time my man. She's a girl. Just so you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yeah, but that wouldn't tell me if it was a systematic difference that might have occurred by chance, I guess I would run an ANOVA to see HOW different the two groups are, because my guess is it's pretty different...I would probably want to know effect size, power, and significance level--but then again, I'm a grad student and statistics owns me. I am a slave to stats.... But there's a nonstochastic algorithm that computes the number of electoral college votes -- really nothing can arise by "chance". (W/ one caveat: Population changes from the Census until now do vary between states, but that's a quantitatively tiny stochastic element, there's no way it changes the basic conclusion.) Really, statistical tests don't say how far apart things are, unless your test assumes some fixed 'gap' under consideration. They only test for equality/nonequality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Let me buy you a beer some time my man. Yes, ChiSoxy is right, I am a girl. But I'll totally take that beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 She's a girl. Just so you know. Wow...its a win, win! Forgive my naïvety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Really, statistical tests don't say how far apart things are, unless your test assumes some fixed 'gap' under consideration. They only test for equality/nonequality. I totally understand that--that a more significant result doesn't necessarily mean that you have a bigger difference in the groups. But I believe that effect size is a good way to quantify how much they vary from each other. I don't know, that's just my take on that. But I do agree that stats has limited use here...But I think it would be very interesting to see the difference due to state size and population and electoral votes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I still don't see the logic in focusing on small state issues as an a priori good -- they are important to fewer people than large state issues, after all. I'm not saying the argument is obviously wrong, maybe there is some justification -- I just haven't heard it. 2000 is a concern. I mean, the outcome was absolutely right under the rules of the electoral college, it was the correct outcome. But I still prefer a simple general election, one person, one vote. No doubt, the situation's rare. But that's no reason (if it is wrong) to not switch to a system where that never happens. So to me, it is still crucial to justify giving disproportionate influence to smaller states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 It's not perfect, but what system is? And the point is, the EC makes those smaller states matter. making the small states matter is the only reason to keep the system, but even so I think it makes the rest of the country do a lot of comtortionism just to try to make the small states matter. And the truth is it is the campaigns that decide if small states matter. It was kind of sad tto here that Cheney's visit to Hawaii is the first time anybody on a Presidential ticket has campaigned there since Nixon in the late 60s. That's how much 4 electoral votes might matter tomorrow. But really, if direct elections are acceptable for 99% of the country's elected offices, why not just make it a clean sweep and do away with the Electoral College? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 2000 is a concern. I mean, the outcome was absolutely right under the rules of the electoral college, it was the correct outcome. But I still prefer a simple general election, one person, one vote. I fully agree--and I feel like the electoral college is rather archaic. I do think it would behoove a candidate to go to all the states anyway, especially in a dead heat like this race...Plus I think vote per vote might make people feel less apathy and more involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I fully agree--and I feel like the electoral college is rather archaic. I do think it would behoove a candidate to go to all the states anyway, especially in a dead heat like this race...Plus I think vote per vote might make people feel less apathy and more involved... Although archiac, it works. I propose a nation-wide District System. It is far and away the most logical approach to the Electoral College. I appreciate your numbers on the vote percentage per citizen in each state jackie...really interesting. BUT...We will never see the overthrow of the Electoral College in our lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I fully agree--and I feel like the electoral college is rather archaic. I do think it would behoove a candidate to go to all the states anyway, especially in a dead heat like this race...Plus I think vote per vote might make people feel less apathy and more involved... agreed, Voter Turnout will be at record highs in Ohio, and Florida, states where your vote actually counts, but here in Illinois, where both the presedential race and the Senate race have both been decided months ago, There is a ton of voter apathy. I spent part of the Weekend in Iowa, it was amazing to me the number of political ads that I saw while watching a football game. I don't see more than a couple during a 3 hour game at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Although archiac, it works. I propose a nation-wide District System. It is far and away the most logical approach to the Electoral College. I appreciate your numbers on the vote percentage per citizen in each state jackie...really interesting. BUT...We will never see the overthrow of the Electoral College in our lifetime. I agree that a district system would be better because it would even things even more. I also agree that we probably won't see the overthrow of the EC in our lifetime. Think about it, if the candidates had to campaign in every state we would see some pretty crappy campaigns and know even less about the candidates then we do today. And one of the reason for that is because it's almost impossible to campaign in every state. Nixon tried. He failed. Furthermore, you think candidates spend too much money now? Think of how much they'd spend if they had to campaign in 50 states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 That's why the electoral college worked in 2000. 31 states to 20 without winning the popular vote. Popular vote isn't representative of the nation as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 That's why the electoral college worked in 2000. 31 states to 20 without winning the popular vote. Popular vote isn't representative of the nation as a whole. I disagree. The popular vote is representative of the people. The electoral college may be representative of the geography, but I don't see why that should be important. There's more red space, sure, but there are fewer people there. Why is (relatively) empty space due more votes? Okay, I don't want to be repetitive, and I think I've said my piece. I'm retiring from this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Florida is the penis of the United States. Any male over the age of 30 realizes that you shouldn't let your penis make decisions for you. You just end up in trouble. The same applies here. Penis should have no electoral votes. Florida, You're fired.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.