the makeout hobo

[quote=Marilyn Monroe;1057659232]I never really thought about it. I think it's fair. Wyoming having more of a vote doesn't matter all that much cause I've never known them to determine an election. [/quote[
Sure it does. Lets say each state only had one vote per representative, instead of one vote per rep and senator. I'd have to do the math, but I'm pretty sure Gore and Kerry both would have won.

Lets say the Electoral College was done by representatives only. Wyoming residents and Californians would be more or less equal, since congressional districts are about the same size (Yes, I know Wyoming's population is smaller than a standard CD, but lets ignore that for now.) If it was just by reps, everyone would have about the same vote. But since it's done by senators too, those few thousand people in Wyoming get two extra votes tacked onto their total, while the millions and millions of people in California get the same extra two votes tacked on. That means the people in Wyoming get more of a vote. Make sense now?

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

Marilyn Monroe

[quote=the makeout hobo;1057659460]Yes, I get it. Took a while, but it's starting to sink in.

__________________
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

The Mark

Yes, but if that map in a previous post is correct, Wyoming still has only 3 EC votes, even with the two senators. Doesn't seem like much, so why does it matter? Is an election going to turn on which candidate Wyoming choses?

But nonetheless, using the below sources for population level, I'm going to play around with a calculator!
Wyoming pop estimate 2006 link
California pop estimate 2006 link
Total population x percentage of pop below age 18 = Population of voting age:
California: ~ 26,942,129
Wyoming: ~ 393,464
Number of EC votes / Population of voting age = ~ number of EC votes per resident of the state in question:

California: ~ 0.000002004
Wyoming: ~ 0.000007625

Interesting...

I hope I used the calculator properly....I double-checked each calculation.

Anyway, this seems to indicate that a resident of voting age in Wyoming gets ~ 0.0000055 more of an EC vote than someone in California....as of 2006, and assuming no voting fraud/errors or some such.

If the 2 senatorial EC votes were removed, that would reduce California to 52 and Wyoming to 1, which changes the EC per resident of voting age to:

California: ~ 0.000001930
Wyoming: ~ 0.000002542

This is a difference of ~ 0.0000006 in favor of Wyoming.

It seems you are correct, the makeout hobo.

__________________
The Mark-----Way off, right on, or somewhere in between, it all depends on your point of view.

Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~
R. Buckminster Fuller

Truth Detector

What did Nixon negotiate with Mao Zedong? What nations did China invade and get kicked out of by the UN? The notion that Sadam's dictatorship can be compared to Mao Zedong and China is absurd in the extreme as are most of your arguments.

So please, tell me how Mao was like Saddam or terrorists or murdering thugs. It should be quite humorous.



What did Reagan negotiate with Gorbachev? What nations did Russia invade and get kicked out of by the UN? The notion that Sadam's dictatorship can be compared to Gorbachev and Russia is absurd in the extreme as are most of your arguments.

So please, tell me how Gorbachev was like Saddam or terrorists or murdering thugs. It should be quite humorous.


I have a pretty low opinion of Liberals who desperately reach for absurd arguments to support their weak philosophical positions because they lack the most basic intellectual honesty.

Carry on.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH.

Denial leads to ignorance, don't do denial.

Truth Detector

Your entire argument is specious. The primary reason you are way off base, which seems to be the norm for you, is that the voters do not choose Presidential Candidates but electoral representatives. Thus it is actually the States who choose the Presidents and not the popular vote.

We are a Federation of States and the Executive is elected by the States. "The election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is indirect. The constitutional theory is that, while the Congress is popularly elected by the people, the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states." Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What makes this system work so well and so genius is that the founders recognized that some coastal states would have much larger populations than those say in the interior, and if Presidents were chosen JUST by popular vote, the candidates would merely have to appeal to those with larger cities and populations and would ignore the smaller agricultural states. Those smaller states would have no voice in our Politics and their interests would be unequally represented.

This is a much fairer form of electing a candidate than we would have if there was just a popular vote. The notion that voters in California have less of a vote is absurd in that the voters do not choose candidates, they choose electors. The argument that Wyoming with 3 electoral votes has more of a say than California with 55 is of course absurd, as is your whole premise.

The argument against the Electoral College can only be made by people who are ignorant of our electoral process and the genius behind it. It is also expressed by Liberals who do not want a more transparent and level playing field but desire to make their hold on power a monopoly as they know that the most populous cities in the nation tend to lean Democrat while most of the smaller cities and interior populations lean Conservative. Therefore the popular vote would tend to give Democrats a large advantage in deciding the Presidency. This is exactly what our founders wished to prevent and the genius of their design over 200 years ago.

If we threw out the Electoral College, the Presidency would be primarily decided by the large cities on the east coast and large cities on the west coast which traditionally vote Democrat. The interior would basically have no representation.

The Mark

Interesting.

Perhaps I should restate my agreement with the makeout hobo. I agree that if you go by the numbers, it appears that a voter in Wyoming gets more of a vote. However, the above point made by Truth Detector seems to indicate the reason for that inequality, which I agree with. Even with the current setup, a candidate for a national position has far less reason to campaign in Wyoming then in California (or any two states with a similar ratio of EC votes).

While this does indirectly give an individual resident of Wyoming more of a say in who our president is (the only nationally elected candidate in our system), it does give the state of Wyoming a more equal position as compared to California.

Marilyn Monroe

It was a diplomatic trip, but......Obama has been talking about meeting with Iran which would start out diplomatic I'd presume. Diplomacy is a way to open the door.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html

They negotiated on nuclear weapons control, but I think it fell through, Reagan said "the Berlin Wall" needed to come down, and it did. Don't know how much Reagan's influence had on that one. Gorbachev tried to give more power to the people, and this was another way of doing it.

I can't see any similarities.

Not super liberal myself, but I'm getting more and more so because the conservatives have a lot of really weak arguments as well. I'm not getting convinced that all their plans are really that good for the country.

the makeout hobo

Nixon went to China in 1972 where he negotiated the Shanghai Communique, which outlined foreign policy aims and led to normalized trade relations. It also clarified the situations of Hong Kong and Macau.

What does China invading nations have to do with anything? They were still a brutal communist dictatorship that had killed up to 20 million of their own people (thank you marilyn), kept the rest of their population in extreme subjection, and threatened us with a mature nuclear weapon system.

Please, tell me what Sadaam has to do with anything? I believe the country Obama discussed meeting with was Iran, not Iraq. As to how China was like Iran, you're right, there's no comparison, Mao's China was much worse.

He held four summits with Gorbachev, in Geneva, Reykjavik, Washington, and Moscow, where he negotiated important test ban and reduction treaties.

Russia was holding all of Eastern Europe under its grip, and if they never got kicked out, it was only because they were too powerful.

I disagree, both were brutal dictatorships that held absolute sway over their people. The biggest difference was that Russia was much bigger and more powerful, and much more of a threat to us. But again, where does sadaam fit in?

Buddy, you really need to read up on history.


Please, stop with the personal attacks, its annoying. Can you explain to me why it was ok for Reagan and Nixon to meet with Gorbachev and Mao, but why its not ok for Obama to meet with the president of Iran?

Truth Detector

China is still a brutal dictatorship is it not? What “normalized trade relations” did we get? It seems pretty unilateral to me don’t you think?

Clarified the situations in Hong Kong and Macau? What was that, that the communists could take them over?

Bottom line, it accomplished NOTHING.


They threatened us with thermo nuclear destruction? Last time I looked, WE were the ones who had the capability. They were playing catch up and eventually caught up because we were too cowered to do anything about it.

Bottom line is this, those negotiations led to nothing more than China having the ability to continue it’s brutal regime and America giving the ability to continue through a unilateral trade agreement that favors their regime over our economy.

The ONLY reason Nixon was in China, and the reason I do not have a low opinion of him for it, is because he was attempting to work WITH the Chinese for a solution to the Vietnam, a war the Democrats hero John F. Kennedy got us into.



I am hardly surprised that you did not understand the connection with Saddam. Here’s why he is relevant; after he was DEFEATED in Kuwait, we attempted negotiation for a decade with Saddam. In the end it accomplished nothing and caused even more suffering of the people in Iraq. We also found out after the fact that the humanitarian oil-for-food program was rife with corruption and enabling Saddam to hold onto his power.

The leaders in Iran have a similar mentality in that they see us a weak willed and unable to follow through on any of your threats. What part of TALK being useless do Liberals NOT understand?

China’s treatment of their own people was none of our concern or relevant in the discourse on the Middle East. China was not held to any UN resolutions or mandates as is the case with Iran and Iraq. So you can argue that it was a despicable dictatorship all you want, but Nixon had no choice but to attempt a dialogue to keep them from dominating the region.



Reagan’s negotiations were warranted to prevent a global holocaust. To compare this effort with those of the Middle East are absurd in the extreme.
However, if we give the Liberals and UN enough time, there will be a similarity in that Iran will be armed with nukes.

This coming from someone attempting to compare the conditions in Iran with China and Russia; how profound.

I will attempt to explain the OBVIOUS to you. Nixon’s meeting with China was a meeting with a nuclear power that dominated the politics in Asia. During Nixon’s unprecedented meeting, we were also attempting to negotiate with the North Vietnamese for a cease fire and peace. China was the main supplier of arms and training to Vietnam. Any dialogue without Chinese involvement would have led to nothing.

Subsequently, and thanks to a Democrat held congress, the Viet cong violated their agreement and re-invaded the South Vietnamese taking them over thanks to Democrats not wishing to meet their promised obligation to the South Vietnamese.

Reagan’s meeting with Russia was also with a nuclear power and an effort to negotiate an arms reduction in an attempt to make the world a slightly safer place. Reagan also ramped up the arms race and development of the anti-ballistic missile shield. He also called the Russian regime “the Evil Empire” which made Liberals quake in their booties and proclaim the end of the world was near and that this irresponsible cowboy was going to start WWIII.

The main difference between Nixon, Reagan and their negotiations is that Iran is not a Russia or a China. It has no nukes, YET, and has very few resources other than oil. Iran will only become a threat if we allow it to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Unlike Russia or China, the current situation in Iran is that they signed onto the UN Nuclear non-proliferation agreement and now are secretly trying to defy it.

The notion that the Bush Administration is not in talks with Iran is a Liberal MYTH and disingenuous partisan rhetoric. This Administration is in a dialogue with Iran and working with the UN to achieve a settlement. The disingenuous rhetoric from Barrack Hussein Obama is the notion that the Bush Administration is not in a dialogue or that the Presidents personal involvement is requirement.

My comments are based on the FACT that the ideas from democrats and Barrack Hussein Obama that TALK is going to matter to despots is naïve and absurd. Reagan and Nixon did not accomplish much with the “dictator’s” you mentioned as the historic record will show. However that stated, their staffs (Secretary of State) had had numerous meetings with both nations prior to a meeting at the highest levels and only after some agreement was assured did these Presidents meet with the leaders of China and Russia resulting in some form of agreement. This is still NOT the case with Iran.

For you to attempt to make such absurd assertions based on my comments is nothing more than a weak attempt to try to defend the indefensible; pathetic partisan rhetoric intended to do nothing more than promote an ideology that when honestly debated would never have a chance at power in this country. Therefore, Liberals and democrats enter in to a world of lies, distortions, innuendo, character attacks and hyperbole in order to promote the FALSE notion that Bush and this Administration is incompetent. I find it offensive in the extreme when the men and women of our armed forces are at risk carrying out the mission that their elected officials sent them to do.

Stop the personal attacks? What personal attacks? I have made no personal attacks to anyone on this forum other than my apt and accurate description about my personal feelings about Liberals. Do you find it offends because you feel your ideals fit the description? My response to that is grow some balls and quit your whining.

George Castanza

I'm voting for Obama, because I despise Wal-Mart and they are spreading a campaign of disinformation about Obama. So that's as good as a reason as any to vote for Obama.