Author
|
Thread |
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX11/25/16 11:32 AM |
"And for the 2nd time in less than 20 years, the same party benefited from that setup."
And how of this is as a result of redistricting practices??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield11/25/16 2:14 PM |
"And how of this is as a result of redistricting practices??"
Shirley you jest. ;0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX11/25/16 2:24 PM |
I mis-typed. How Much of this..
And don't call me Shirley
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JohnC
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1939
Location: Glastonbury, Ct11/26/16 7:15 AM |
quote:
And how much of this is as a result of redistricting practices??
I may be missing something, but I think if a state awards electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (as nearly all do), then district lines have absolutely no impact on the presidential election. They do, of course, have a huge impact on the composition of the House of Representatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX11/26/16 10:34 AM |
I saw districts on news maps at the state level turning red or blue during the election.
So your post is confusing to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield11/26/16 12:41 PM |
Cycling content
Bob: The meaning came through the first time. After some of the non-sequiturs I've posted, right? It seemed like a good time for an old joke though.
IMO redistricting has almost everything to do with our current state of affairs.
Elimination of competition through redistricting is un-American! </serious>
Competition makes America great.
It's like a bike race, the competitors help each other until they can recognize a clear advantage on their part, but these days one guy has a derny.
Then there's the money. That has radicalized the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JohnC
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1939
Location: Glastonbury, Ct11/26/16 12:50 PM |
quote:
I saw districts on news maps at the state level turning red or blue during the election.
So your post is confusing to me.
They count and report the votes by districts (and even smaller subdivisions), and the media reporting the ongoing count will show that in order to project what might happen as the count continues; e.g., "X is ahead, but District A, which is expected to go heavily Y, is only 10% counted." But if the state awards all electoral votes to the overall state winner, the district count is meaningless, so how the district is drawn has no effect.
Last edited by JohnC on 11/26/16 12:52 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine11/26/16 12:51 PM |
Redistricting
Following up on John's post, a total of 4 electoral votes (2 in Maine, 2 in Nebraska) are determined by the vote in a district. So that is the maximum impact redistricting could have on the presidential race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX11/26/16 3:09 PM |
Thank you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield11/27/16 6:48 AM |
Out of habit I've been banging a familiar drum, my redistricting rant, and I let it slop over to this. --I agree, at best, redistricting and the Presidential election results are only indirectly related. HRC was beat fair and square under the rules. Immediately prior to the election she was being criticized for just going after large EC states.
I can't wait to see how the demographics change on Doomsday Preppers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH11/27/16 4:20 PM |
Regarding the outsized influence of rural areas...
...in the Electoral College, it is absolutely justified. City dwellers in their insular environments often have no clue about and probably couldn't be bothered with the issues that are important to rural America. That would change if suddenly there were no raw materials to build cities, no energy to power them, no food for their populations to eat and no water for them to drink. Production of these resources by their nature restricts the population in rural areas. Considering the vital role they play in society and the economy, rural areas should not be penalized for having low population densities. The current electoral vote distribution is exactly as it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC11/27/16 4:59 PM |
You made an argument on the importance of rural area. But you didn't address the other 2 points that
1) they're already represented by equal number of senate seats despite of the low population.
2) what's the justification of winner takes all?
That's not to mention your argument focus on rural environment which is not the same as the INTEREST of rural population.
The irony being, the rural POPULATION wants JOBS and developments, without the environmental regulations. More likely to hurt the environment you claim to love!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal11/28/16 11:46 AM |
In a broad and general sense, with the population moving into cities and suburbs, the wilderness and it's resources are still left to be managed and utilized as a valuable resource.
With the people and their (electoral) control removed from the vast countryside, a hyper-majority of urban dwellers thus demands only the refined, marketable products that the country brings to the city, leaving the ravenous, foreign, corporate/monopolistic/scorched-earth types left to manage the exploitation of rural America's resources.
Giving living rural occupants generous say (through the electoral college) in how these regions are managed, with these people's generational attachment to these lands, might be expected to show a far less short-sighted approach to land management, less exploitation if you will (fracking perhaps being a good example), for the sake of Wall Street's quick-buck types who don't live there and often don't even reside in the United States!
Consideration of how rural lands are utilized is firstly a matter of national security, which is severely compromised by Wall Street's external/foreign interests and influence.
We're in an age where expressing such concerns is nearly enough to get one branded as an evil "nationalist" or other buzz-word of choice. This due to foreign corporate control of the media voice, who has been working on our collective sensibilities for a long time now. It becomes the deadly side of political correctness when national security takes second place to foreign/corporate wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC11/28/16 12:15 PM |
"In a broad and general sense"...
The new president campaigned on removing environmental regulations! Calling any such regulation as a "liberal hoax"!!!
Although he didn't say much about fracking, you want to bet what his position will be?
And you want to say anything about the position of those who voted FOR him on that issue?
In fact, your claim of "Wall Street" exploitation of resources as a whole applies MORE to the pro-development faction of ... guess what? Wall Street's darling of faceless, soulless corporations!
But you believe that's why the rural population needs over-representation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal11/28/16 6:14 PM |
1st two questions have obvious answers, it's the usual ratcheting effect of the two-party party.
"In fact, your claim of "Wall Street" exploitation of resources as a whole applies MORE to the pro-development faction of ... guess what? Wall Street's darling of faceless, soulless corporations!"
Uh huh(?). I guess that's part of what I was saying, that corporation's owners and urban/suburban dwellers may not be aware (or care) about longer-term resource management, as much as the people who live on rural/wilderness lands. Investors are happy to make a quick buck, the bigger the better, but for that matter some in the country are happy to do the same thing for short-term gain, although with the consequences more directly in their faces.
The forest lands and such need representation by other than the inertia of economic/resource flow through big business' hands into the urban/suburban consumption machine.
And by other than "funded" politicians, to the extent that's possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine11/28/16 6:39 PM |
Except that
Rural populations frequently oppose management and regulation and favor exploitation of resources for their own economic advantage.
Did the rural populations supporting Trump vote in favor of management and regulation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC11/28/16 7:36 PM |
(sign)
Short-sighted people can't "see" they are short-sighted.
That very rural population voted someone into office that intent to remove all environment regulation, to allow unbridled development at the expense of rural resources.
That very rural population will within the same breath vote to open a coal mine because it will create jobs. However much it pollutes the ground water.
The very same rural population will often gladly support fracking.
...
It's the "big city transplants" to the rural area who're blocking all that "development" and "job creation" with their big city climate change hoax excuse.
But I suppose BOTH kind of rural population should be favorably represented? Let's face it. More and more city folks ARE moving to the rural area, buying up lands and farm and building macMansions. Including retired Wall Street Fat Cats too. They too, will soon have exaggerated representation. Take a look at Colorado. Montana is the next big favorite destination for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield11/28/16 9:53 PM |
Is it best for the skilled and educated creators of finished goods and the great wealth they bring the body whole to be under represented in comparison to the providers of raw materials?
As the production of raw materials becomes mechanized at a greater rate than the production of finished goods, must the thinning population that produces the raw goods proportionally receive greater representation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3234
Location: Midland, MI11/29/16 10:06 AM |
In summary
I think April's most recent post summed it up well. It's a nice myth that the rural population "values the land" but the facts state otherwise. It's completely understandable that when your livelihood is threatened, you will get behind anything that looks like it will provide jobs, but that rarely is an environmentally friendly business in rural America. There probably can be an argument made for the small farmer being more "land conscious" but anyone who has been paying attention knows that they are being run off the land by heavily subsidized corporate farms owned by guess who.
While this discussion has focused on the electoral college and the over representation it gives to rural voters, this is really pretty minor compare to the gross overrepresentation they get in the US Senate, and to a lesser extent in the US House. When you stand back from it, this is much more significant than their impact on presidential elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX12/3/16 1:40 PM |
What am I missing on why the Carrier deal is totally wrong and stupid??
1st, better learn to delegate and not be so hands on dummy.
2nd, what?now that it is not his money is he going to make totally stupid deals? The fart of the deal now it ain't his coin? WTF.
Seems to be a bad sign and precedent, and/or is he already just lining his friends and family's pockets?? Status Quo at it's finest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/12/16 8:23 PM |
Won't it be ironic if
Won't it be ironic if the electoral college ends up saving the election from foreign influence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/12/16 8:40 PM |
My paranoid fantasy is coming true
Context: Keith Olberman is quoting a leaked report of the briefings given to Senate and House members on the Russian cyber espionage effort to influence the Presidential election.
It starts at three minutes in, with the quote.
https://youtu.be/IAFxPXGDH4E?t=182
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4391
Location: metro-motown-area12/15/16 10:41 AM |
carrier nonsense
The Carrier company is using the $16.5 million investment in the Indiana plant to automate it, which will lead to more layoffs in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal12/15/16 10:12 PM |
Carrier is owned by United Technologies, a huge tech/industrial conglomerate.
Here, UTI's CEO discusses this very topic in an address to the CFR, just before the recent election. He gets into the move to Mexico around minute 8 of his address.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/globalization-american-workforce-conversation-gregory-j-hayes/p38443
CFR is more US-centric than the Trilateral Commission, and less influential (than the TC) these days. Still, they are about as global-leaning as can be.
CFR is an arm of the old Royal Institute for International Affairs, out of the UK/City of London sphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|