The Frying Pan - 2016-05-24 (page 4 of 4)

« first day (2084 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2897 days later) »

11:00 PM

Just contributing to an electoral college vote, I guess?

@Jefromi They get to vote for president... what they didn't have until much more recently was representation in congress... they had a representative but she didn't get a vote.

Actually, it looks like she still doesn't get to vote

District of Columbia voting rights

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. As the U.S. capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in the Congress. The Constitution grants the Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever." In the United States House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed...

From another point of view, you could say that 50 million people don't get a vote, because they didn't vote for the electoral college winner in their state.

This is true. According to that video, only two states award electoral votes proportionally.

This is based on the 2012 election, where 53.5 million people voted for the loser in their state, out of 127.6 million voters.

That's kind of unfair though because the campaigns are based on that

They don't campaign a ton in states where they're already going to win.

Yes... if your state is obviously blue or red, the candidates ignore you.

Purple states get all of the attention.

11:09 PM

wait, what has the amount of campaigning have to do with fairness?

so, electoral college

Since the winner gets all the electoral college votes for the state, candidates won't campaign hard in states with a predetermined outcome (strong majority for one party).

That means that the election will look closer in that state than it actually would be, if they were campaigning everywhere equally.

why would it look closer?

Look at California, for example.

In 2012 it was about 8 million for Obama, 5 million for Romney.

If they actually fight over the state, Obama can probably increase the lead.

why would a fight over the state increase the lead?

Oh, sorry. Increase the lead in terms of number of absolute voters in the election.

Because more campaigning leads to more turnout.

So even if they stay at the same ratio in the state, Obama gains more than Romney.

and then comes out farther ahead on the popular vote in the overall election.

11:15 PM

I am barely literate on matters of the American voting system.

It's messed up :(

Last year or so I learned that there are people who represent their states (or was it districts? Or precints?) who are required by law to cast a vote for the person who got the majority among the people they represent

That is the electoral college we're talking about!

Or maybe there are other things too, but.

The actual presidential elections work like that.

Every state but Maine and Nebraska, anyways.

and the "popular vote" is the sum of all votes for each candidate across the country?

@Catija That's what I meant by leverage: the amount you have to spend to switch 1 elector gets lower if it's winner-take-all and you spend only in swing states.

11:17 PM

Yeah, popular vote doesn't matter.

People will look at it because you can, and it's often way closer to 50% than the electoral college vote.

how did Maine and Nebraska get to have an exception?

States make their own rules.

@rumtscho Each state decides... they decided to do it proportionally.

Everyone just mostly has the same rules.

@Catija I think they have a weird hybrid system, with both at-large electors and per-district electors.

It's very rare for the popular vote and the electoral college to be opposites, though...

@Jefromi Oh, that is interesting. So some chunk are awarded as a mass and some are awarded by district... odd.

11:19 PM

@rumtscho That was most probably about the delegates in the primaries.

The more I learn about your voting system, the more I am amazed not that it works as badly as you guys complain, but that it works as well as it does

Essentially it's the same as voting for their representation in congress: they have two at-large electors that go to the state-wide winner (like senators) and then one for each district (like their reps in the houe).

@Cerberus But that's not a legal thing. The primaries are run by the parties, not the government... they can change the rules whenever they like.

@Cerberus Could be. The primaries are similar to the electoral college... but the electors aren't all bound like that, and Catija's point also.

A two party system is a bad one, but it sounds like a miracle that you don't have a one party system

11:20 PM

Oh, I think that part is easy, the two parties continually shift to get approximately 50% of the vote?

That's my naive perception, anyways.

what do you mean by "continually shift"?

@Catija Yes, but those delegates have signed contracts, haven't they? Promising that they will vote thus.

The platform for the parties evolves over time.

ah, yes.

It used to make them more centrist... now they're getting more and more polarized... Not that the president can do anything with a congress that won't compromise.

11:21 PM

And coincidentally they stay relatively close to 50/50 in the ways that matter.

(I assume this is not a coincidence.)

@Cerberus Usually that only applies to the first voting session, after that they can vote for whomever they like.

@rumtscho A single-party system is usually unstable in a democracy.

And also it's a party system not a legal system, and it doesn't apply to all the delegates, so... maybe it was what rumtscho heard, maybe not. Electoral college is more similar to her description, anyways.

@Cerberus it gets challenged by a ton of smaller parties - which don't have much chances in the American system

@Catija Yes, and there is only one voting session if one candidate "gets" more than 50% of all delegates in that session, right?

11:23 PM

My memory is not clear enough on the details to be able to tell which one it was I heard about.

@rumtscho What gets challenged, exactly? A single-party system? You're right that small parties usually don't stand a chance in winner-take-all systems.

@Cerberus It's not usually an issue. Most of the time, there's only one candidate and the entire event is just a big party... party party?... but if none of the candidates hit the required number of delegates, then it gets messy.

The single party gets challenged, not the whole system

you have a Goliath who gets all the votes

@rumtscho The primaries have been on the news a lot, with Trump and Clinton and Sanders...

@Catija Yes, that is what I meant.

then you have a handful of people unhappy with their position on X, which form the small X party

11:25 PM

Eventually, one of those small parties will become big enough to challenge Goliath.

and another handful of people happy with the Goliath's position on X, but wanting a difference on Y, who then make the small Y party

@Cerberus Technically, if Trump doesn't get the... 1500 or whatever he needs, they could put up someone who wasn't even running in the primaries to start with.

I know.

if they are good enough at diplomacy, and their voter bases are not too different from each other, they can coalesce

@Catija But, if he does, those delegates are bound by contract to vote for him, aren't they?

11:27 PM

@Cerberus Maybe? I don't know if it's universal or if each state has different rules.

I think so.

Otherwise, they're super delegates, right?

Since super delegates can vote for whomever they want.

Super delegates are more on the Democratic side. They have a couple on the Republican side but they're not really as powerful.

Republican party has unbound delegates at a state level, I think?

> At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention who are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong.

In American politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and...

But I believe whichever delegates Trump has so far "won" are contractually obliged to vote for him, at least in the first round in this party congress thing.

Oder?

11:31 PM

He needs 1237 and has 1169.

All I know is from what I read in the papers.

gory details: graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/rnc-convention-delegates

> The process that would then play out is governed by dozens of byzantine party rules that determine if, how and when delegates from each state, territory and Washington, D.C., become free to back a candidate other than the one to whom their voters have assigned them.

HA HA HA

That's an awesome infographic. :D

@Jefromi Right, so in practice the very large majority of those delegates that Trump has "won" will be bound in the first voting session.

I assume unbound candidates are not added to his total in the graphs one sees in the papers.

Yes. Pennsylvania and North Dakota seem to be the odd ones out.

11:42 PM

@Catija Yes, but they will not have been added to Trump's total in the totals we see in the papers, right?

@Cerberus Delegates? Yes, the first infographic shows them as being green still

I think they remain green until the votes are cast?

No, the light grey are the ones that haven't had a primary yet.

You'd probably have to check. I think some sources will assume unbound delegates will vote in line and include them (because they're "supposed to", so it'd in some sense be unrealistic not to include them in the numbers).

wow, when did it get to be 2 AM?

GOod night everybody

11:49 PM

good night!

Coincidentally:

nytimes.com/2016/05/25/us/politics/…

> Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party.

Perhaps ending up with the one candidate they didn't want is enough incentive to get them to try to put their house in order?

(whereas previous years in which a flawed process picked a candidate they were cool with, ehhhh)

I think that's where the superdelegates came from on the Democratic side.

@Catija No, the bright green ones.

@rumtscho Gute Nacht!

« first day (2084 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2897 days later) »

Transcript for

May '1624

The Frying Pan

Sometimes hot, always heavy. (cooking.stackexchange.com)

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile