Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:
Your entire government has been desperate to find a way to fund this work. They know how important it is. They know what needs to be done. They can't afford it.

Anything you suggest as another way to fund it is something they have already looked at and found to be insufficient. They have known about this for over a decade, not a single solution has ever been found.

This isn't true. While there are more hurdles to jump to pass a spending bill that isn't funded, there's nothing to actually stop congress, if there is genuine desire in congress to get the bill passed. The reason Obama's $500 billion in infrastructure spending has been shot down each year is because Republicans don't like the bill. The reason Republicans gave for not liking the bill is because it was unfunded, or would have been funded through tax increases.

But now Republicans are lining up behind Trump's $1 trillion tax giveaway, so clearly the problem was never the impact on the deficit. The problem was that Republicans oppose things put up by Democrats.


And for what it's worth, Trump's idiotic tax giveaway doesn't actually address the critical issue with infrastructure - maintenance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
There is a fething solution. Tax the rich.

You must be pretty irate about the new tax scheme Republicans are going to put through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you insist on having this false dilemma between "don't care and do nothing" and "tax the poor to pay for it"? Sales taxes, especially sales taxes on essential goods and services (like gas), disproportionately hurt poor people because poor people spend a much greater percentage of their income on those things. We need to increase infrastructure spending, but taxing the poor to pay for it is not the right approach.

To go in to more detail on this, while the gas tax is regressive, it's one tax and shouldn't be seen in isolation. In Europe and Australia there are gas taxes that would amaze you guys, and yet overall we have more even distributions of income, because we have more progressive tax scales, larger safety nets etc.

The regressive impact of a gas tax is a far from insurmountable problem.

And it should be remembered that as well as raising revenue, a gas tax has the advantage of discouraging wasteful use of gas, driving when walking or public transport are options, and encouraging people towards newer, more efficient cars.

I agree that Pouncey's no infrastructure/gas tax argument is a false argument, but it is also false that a gas tax can't be looked at as part simply because it is regressive.

 sebster wrote:
The regressive impact of a gas tax is a far from insurmountable problem.

Unless you're talking about the US, in which case it's pretty close to insurmountable. Raising progressive taxes to offset a regressive tax is virtually impossible in the current political environment, even if it's theoretically possible to do so.

And it should be remembered that as well as raising revenue, a gas tax has the advantage of discouraging wasteful use of gas, driving when walking or public transport are options, and encouraging people towards newer, more efficient cars.

The problem is that this is still a burden that is heavier on people the poorer they are. Poor people have a higher percentage of their driving spent on mandatory things (getting to work and back vs. going out for fun), have much less ability to buy newer cars, and have much less choice in housing options to live near walking or public transit options. And public transit in the US sucks.

 whembly wrote:
Sucks to be on the losing side... eh?

Seriously, shut up about this. We've been pushing against this for far longer. I'll state it again, we's still be having this conversation if Trump won the popular and Hilary won the EC. It's a bad system, It's nothing to do with losing.

Also, suggesting Obama is the conservative Trump equivalent is a little hilarious.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sucks to be on the losing side... eh?

Seriously, shut up about this. We've been pushing against this for far longer. I'll state it again, we's still be having this conversation if Trump won the popular and Hilary won the EC. It's a bad system, It's nothing to do with losing.

Politics is only about "my team/your team" and "winning/loosing" for him. That's 95% of the problem with his viewpoints, they all start from the viewpoint that politics has to revolve around teams rather than governing.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unless you're talking about the US, in which case it's pretty close to insurmountable. Raising progressive taxes to offset a regressive tax is virtually impossible in the current political environment, even if it's theoretically possible to do so.

Yeah, definitely. I didn't mean to say that people should put this tax in place, and then just hope that an offsetting progressive tax will come along later. It should be done as one bill containing all these elements, the spending on infrastructure, the gas tax, and the offsetting tax adjustments elsewhere.

This doesn't happen, of course, because one side of politics will not agree to any tax increase, whether it is proportionate, progressive or regressive. And that same side of politics will not agree to any infrastructure bill that is unfunded... until it comes from a president from their team, then policy changes to feth it, lets fething crank the spending, even when it's on a tax credit scheme that won't drive necessary infrastructure.

The problem is that this is still a burden that is heavier on people the poorer they are. Poor people have a higher percentage of their driving spent on mandatory things (getting to work and back vs. going out for fun), have much less ability to buy newer cars, and have much less choice in housing options to live near walking or public transit options. And public transit in the US sucks.

Of course. That's why it should be done in conjunction with progressive adjustments, such as a change to income tax rates.

 whembly wrote:
Nah. Don't buy it Scooty...

You don't buy it because you don't understand it.

I'm fully aware what the EC system is... you are simply pissing in the wind here buddy.

That's funny, because you've continually put forward weak arguments that show you have no clue what the repercussions of the electoral system are.

Not really... much of the same problem with the current EC system. Candidates simply focus on the more populous regions.

Of course, more people equals more votes, but the rest of votes can't be taken for granted because winning the big cities doesn't get a candidate anywhere near the plurality on a popular vote election.

I'm simply saying that you CANNOT expect people to vote in the same way under a EC system compared to a Popular vote (or the like) system. Do you think Democrats living in Texas or other red state are enthusiastic voters under the EC system? Likewise for Republicans living in New York or California?

Yes, they are unenthusiastic due in large part to how our system works. The United States is the only country with the electoral college system for electing our head of state and we have some of the poorest voter turnout in the developed world. It's easy to see why, large parts of our populations have meaningless votes.

That's why it's silly to look at the popular vote under the EC system and assume that the outcome would be the same under alternate voting systems.

That's what you're doing, yes.

Overreact much?

No. That's a fething stupid reason for keeping anything and you know it.

You go ahead and wargame how easy it would be to change the sytem.

Go on...

You're building a strawman argument here, Whembly. Nothing I've said in these replies has been about changing the system, just that the system itself is stupid. Trying to turn that into me arguing for changing it is a strawman; I understand it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Which you fail to understand how this system works Scooty. You. Not me.

What don't I understand, Whembly? What conclusive proof have you brought forward that makes your argument stronger than mine? Everything you've said, I've refuted. You posted stupid memes and I've explained why they're wrong. You tried to use, "It's not the best but it's what we have," which is so beyond dumb it's not even worth addressing.

You've been reduced to trying to turn my correct accusation that you don't really understand what you're arguing for against me without offering a shred of proof. Nice.

Sucks to be on the losing side... eh?

I think what d-usa said in response to this childish reply says enough.

Welcome to what conservatives felt in 2008.

Oh, you mean when President Obama won his election with nearly 10 million more votes than John McCain?

 djones520 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Or get Women to work. I live in Japan and am still constantly surprised by the fact that many women automatically expect to become housewives when they get married. I'm not sure on the numbers but they could easily add a few million to the workforce by encouraging women to work.

They're concentrating more on getting women to get pregnant. That was something the JSDF was trying to push on it's service women when I was stationed there.

Japan isn't concentrating on one more than the other. The truth is they're all over the shop, trying to ensure there's lot of babies for the future by getting women to marry and make babies, but then also trying to get women in to the workplace now by working with companies to reform business practices. Abe is really pushing the latter now.

The effective answer, funnily enough, is something Japan has been more than willing to do with most everything else - spend loads of government money. Seriously, paid parental leave and strong family benefits do wonders for the birth rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
... okay... and?

You were saying how the US is a union of states, that's all. And yet there in the preamble, the first three words are "We the people". I switched that to "We the states" to make fun of your insistence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

Absolutely. If there had been a popular vote then maybe even more Republicans would have turned out in Texas and New York, knowing their vote would have counted for something. Maybe there would have been even more of them than their would have been Democrats. As you say, we don't know.

So again, note this isn't about whether team blue or team red 'should' have won the election. Team red won by the rules of the system, and that's that.

The point in discussion is whether this system is actually a good one or a crap one. And on that point, note that per your argument, because of the system you have in place we have no idea who the majority of people actually want as president. That's a pretty big sign that it is a gak system.

 sebster wrote:
The point in discussion is whether this system is actually a good one or a crap one. And on that point, note that per your argument, because of the system you have in place we have no idea who the majority of people actually want as president. That's a pretty big sign that it is a gak system.

I personally think we should switch to a Parliamentary system. It'll never happen, but I think we should.

They're less likely to get caught in two-party systems than Presidential Republics are.

 LoneLictor wrote:
I personally think we should switch to a Parliamentary system. It'll never happen, but I think we should.

They're less likely to get caught in two-party systems than Presidential Republics are.

They're probably more prone to two party parliamentary politics, if only because there's very little negotiation required. A majority of one can be absolute power, if you keep party discipline.

Really, the way to think of a parliamentary system is that the president wouldn't be popularly elected at all, but would instead just be the head of the House of Representatives. All powers of the presidency would shift in to that role, with control of specific government departments assigned by the PM to other members of the House of Representatives. So it would be Paul Ryan in control, although at any point the rest of the party in the House of Representatives could decide they want someone else, and hold a vote to pick some other member of the House to the role.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nah. Don't buy it Scooty...

You don't buy it because you don't understand it.

:rolls eyes:

Sure scooty.

I'm fully aware what the EC system is... you are simply pissing in the wind here buddy.

That's funny, because you've continually put forward weak arguments that show you have no clue what the repercussions of the electoral system are.

And yet you're the one having the hissy fit because the election didn't go your way.

Not really... much of the same problem with the current EC system. Candidates simply focus on the more populous regions.

Of course, more people equals more votes, but the rest of votes can't be taken for granted because winning the big cities doesn't get a candidate anywhere near the plurality on a popular vote election.

You'e complained that large swath of the electorate are being ignored under the EC system.

IN a popular vote (or like) system, large swath of the electorate would still be ignored.

I'm simply saying that you CANNOT expect people to vote in the same way under a EC system compared to a Popular vote (or the like) system. Do you think Democrats living in Texas or other red state are enthusiastic voters under the EC system? Likewise for Republicans living in New York or California?

Yes, they are unenthusiastic due in large part to how our system works. The United States is the only country with the electoral college syste for electing our head of state and we have some of the poorest voter turnout in the developed world. It's easy to see why, large parts of our populations have meaningless votes.

:rolls eyes:

Okay, we suck. Do your part to change the system.

That's why it's silly to look at the popular vote under the EC system and assume that the outcome would be the same under alternate voting systems.

That's what you're doing, yes.

No I'm not. *You* seem to think the popular vote has meaning under this system.

Overreact much?

No. That's a fething stupid reason for keeping anything and you know it.

You're proving my point scooty.

You go ahead and wargame how easy it would be to change the sytem.

Go on...

You're building a strawman argument here, Whembly. Nothing I've said in these replies has been about changing the system, just that the system itself is stupid. Trying to turn that into me arguing for changing it is a strawman; I understand it isn't going to happen any time soon.

No I'm not. I'm merely advocating a pragmatic view here.

Which you fail to understand how this system works Scooty. You. Not me.

What don't I understand, Whembly? What conclusive proof have you brought forward that makes your argument stronger than mine? Everything you've said, I've refuted. You posted stupid memes and I've explained why they're wrong. You tried to use, "It's not the best but it's what we have," which is so beyond dumb it's not even worth addressing.

You've been reduced to trying to turn my correct accusation that you don't really understand what you're arguing for against me without offering a shred of proof. Nice.

What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

No. You are merely whining.

Sucks to be on the losing side... eh?

I think what d-usa said in response to this childish reply says enough.

Childish?

Jeeze... it's wrong to empathize with you that your favored candidate lost?

It's not like I'm shoving my shadenboner in everyone's face every chance I could...

o.O

Chillax man.

Welcome to what conservatives felt in 2008.

Oh, you mean when President Obama won his election with nearly 10 million more votes than John McCain?

No... I mean being invested in so much of a particular outcome and realizing that it's going to be a loooooong 4/8 years.

 whembly wrote:
What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

NO.

It that big enough for you to see it? I don't know how many times you have to be told that it's not about the outcome, it's about the system that is flawed. This isn't about winning or losing, it's about a gak system that desperately needs updating.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

NO.

It that big enough for you to see it? I don't know how many times you have to be told that it's not about the outcome, it's about the system that is flawed. This isn't about winning or losing, it's about a gak system that desperately needs updating.

I'm discussing this with Scooty... so in his case:
YES!

In your case, sure.

In a hypothetical, would you trade rescinding the 17th amendment for a change to the EC system?

 whembly wrote:
And yet you're the one having the hissy fit because the election didn't go your way.

No it didn't. I don't like Hillary Clinton and I didn't want her to be President. I've not liked the Electoral College system since well before this election. I've already explained this numerous times in the past, but you're too stuborn to actually pay attention to anything that isn't your stupid fething Twitter feed to realize it.

You'e complained that large swath of the electorate are being ignored under the EC system.

IN a popular vote (or like) system, large swath of the electorate would still be ignored.

How will they be ignored, Whembly? And don't say, "The candidates will only campaign in the big cities," because that isn't true (and I've pointed it out pages ago).

Okay, we suck. Do your part to change the system.

An unsurprising gak response from you. Sure, dude, let me wave my magic wand to fix all of the things I don't like about our voting system.

No I'm not. *You* seem to think the popular vote has meaning under this system.

No I don't. If you think that, please show me where I've said it.

I'll be waiting.

You're proving my point scooty.

What is your point?

No I'm not. I'm merely advocating a pragmatic view here.

No you aren't. You're reflexively defending a system you misunderstand and you're doing a rather poor job at.

What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

Do I like that Trump won? Nope. Do I like that Clinton lost? Yep. Is the Electoral College undemocratic and anti-republic? Yep.

No. You are merely whining.

Actually I'm not. I'm laying out the problems in our flawed system of electing a head of state, something that I've care about for more than two weeks.

Childish?

Yes, you have a childish view of politics, something you've made perfectly clear in all of these stupid threads.

Jeeze... it's wrong to empathize with you that your favored candidate lost?

My "favored candidate" didn't lose because I never had one. The person I voted for in the primaries, a Republican mind you, didn't make it to the general election.

It's not like I'm shoving my shadenboner in everyone's face every chance I could...

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

Chillax man.

I'm not unchill, I'm just tired of your bs "arguments" that have no basis in reality.

No... I mean being invested in so much of a particular outcome and realizing that it's going to be a loooooong 4/8 years.

Aren't you supposedly #NeverTrump? Did you want the same outcome as me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

NO.

It that big enough for you to see it? I don't know how many times you have to be told that it's not about the outcome, it's about the system that is flawed. This isn't about winning or losing, it's about a gak system that desperately needs updating.

I'm discussing this with Scooty...

Yeah, and I've said the exact same thing Co'tor has said and I said pages ago.

Quit trying to make my argument something that it's not, it's fething annoying.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

NO.

It that big enough for you to see it? I don't know how many times you have to be told that it's not about the outcome, it's about the system that is flawed. This isn't about winning or losing, it's about a gak system that desperately needs updating.

I'm discussing this with Scooty... so in his case:
YES!

In your case, sure.

In a hypothetical, would you trade rescinding the 17th amendment for a change to the EC system?

Yes, actually. It would insure that both state and the people's interests are represented, although I'd also want stringent anti-gerrymandering rules in place. I'd prefer having both be elected by the people, but that woukd be preferable to what we have now (plus it would get people to actually fething vote in state elections) .

Remember guys, the important thing is that Hillary lost.

We got the Governor who gave the energy companies free reign in Oklahoma and who oversaw our rise as the most earthquake riddled state in the union in the running for Secretary of the Interior.

We got an Breitbart News whispering in Trump's ear and we got white supremacists shouting Heil Trump, and the only response is Trump complaining about the mean cast of Hamilton on Twitter.

We got people doing every single fething thing Hillary did in the new administration being defended by the people who a few weeks ago were bitching about every single fething thing Hillary did.


But the important thing is that the Red Team Won and we are just bitching about loosing a game of politics because we suck as playing Twittah or something. It's not about real world consequences, it's not about actual living breathing people being affected by politics. It's a fething game and the only things that matters is that your team got a score.

And as long as we argue with the players we are participating in their stupid game, so why do we keep on rolling the dice with them?

Here you go, Whembly. Since I know you won't take it upon yourself to go back and actually read what I've written about the Electoral College, here is a collection of things I've said recently about it:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
If this is directed to me, please note that I'm not crying. Within the rules of the system, Trump won fair and square; getting less votes than his opponent doesn't delegitimize his electoral victory. I don't like Clinton and I really didn't want her to be president, however, I dislike our undemocratic, anti-republic method of electing a president. This has nothing to do with the two clowns that ran for president this year.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And there is where you would be incorrect. My disdain for the electoral system is nonpartisan; the person with the most votes deserves to win if it's a fair system. Right now, our votes aren't equal and that's unacceptable. We shouldn't be bound by an archaic system that really only served as a stopgap when it was implemented to begin with.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Bear in mind, it makes no difference which party is the one that gets shafted by an arcane system from 18th century, it needs to be fixed. I've long railed against the Electoral College as it stands today, especially since I'm from one of the states that gives up some of our electoral votes. Granted, an amendment to the Constitution is unlikely (that it has almost passed before), my only hope in the immediate future is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gains more momentum.

 whembly wrote:
IN a popular vote (or like) system, large swath of the electorate would still be ignored.

Okay, I've explained this maybe three times to you now, and each time you've jsut ignored it. Here it is again, please read this, and either accept it or try and claim why it is wrong. Don't just ignore my argument and continue spamming yours. Okay, here we go...

Let's say you and I are running for the presidency under a popular vote system. You notice early on that 60% of all votes are in cities, and just 40% in country areas. You decide on an election strategy focusing just on that 60% of votes, spending all your campaign money on ads and rallies in the cities. Whereas I target voters wherever they are, spending 60% of my money on voters in the cities, and 40% of my money on voters in rural areas.

We both have even campaign funds, let's say we each have $100 million. This means that 60% of voters, the city voters, will be exposed to $100 million of your campaign spend, and $60 million of my campaign spend. That's a 67% advantage in spending, which is considerable but nothing overwhelming. They will hear your ads more than mine, but they will still here both our ads. You will tour each city more than me, but we will both still have a presence in every city. So it will advantage you, but nothing crazy. Let's say from a position where we were both equally liked in cities, your big spending and focus there drives you to a 4 point win in the cities, 52 to 48.

But out in the country, well I spend $40 million to your nothing and I tour through many regional areas. People there see a bunch of my ads, they see my tour bus going through their areas, while they don't see you at all. You have no ads responding to whatever attacks I make against you, you have no ads trying to challenge whatever crazy claims and promises I want to put on the airwaves. Obviously this is going to give me a massive advantage among rural voters, probably at least 20 points, and realistically it would probably be more than that. It is very easy for voters to feel resentful of a candidate who ignores them

So the upshot is that you win 52% of the 60% who live in cities, and 40% of the 40% who live in rural areas. That gives you 47% to my 52%, and that's giving you a very generous share of the vote in areas you ignored completely.

The optimum strategy for this is to aim for every vote you can, wherever it is.

 d-usa wrote:

...
...

And as long as we argue with the players we are participating in their stupid game, so why do we keep on rolling the dice with them?

The Moderators' view is that your posts are read by people who don't post or argue, and while you will never change Whembly's mind, these other silent members might actually be swayed by the arguments you are presenting, if they are well thought out and explained.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And yet you're the one having the hissy fit because the election didn't go your way.

No it didn't. I don't like Hillary Clinton and I didn't want her to be President. I've not liked the Electoral College system since well before this election. I've already explained this numerous times in the past, but you're too stuborn to actually pay attention to anything that isn't your stupid fething Twitter feed to realize it.

Riiiight... I seriously doubt you'd be having this much of an indignant reaction had Clinton won.

I remember you complaining about the human element of the electoral voters... particularly the unfaithful electors. But, this much agitation over the results of this elections indicates to me that you were hoping for Clinton to win.

You'e complained that large swath of the electorate are being ignored under the EC system.

IN a popular vote (or like) system, large swath of the electorate would still be ignored.

How will they be ignored, Whembly? And don't say, "The candidates will only campaign in the big cities," because that isn't true (and I've pointed it out pages ago).

Just because you "pointed it out pages ago" doesn't mean you're right.

Candidates will go and campaign where the votes will be. Can you at least admit that?

Okay, we suck. Do your part to change the system.

An unsurprising gak response from you. Sure, dude, let me wave my magic wand to fix all of the things I don't like about our voting system.

gak response. You have yet to push for a better idea.

But, go ahead... keep on complaining if it's cathartic for you.

No I'm not. *You* seem to think the popular vote has meaning under this system.

No I don't. If you think that, please show me where I've said it.

I'll be waiting.

I know you've brought up criticism in the past, but this response:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/9210/698575.page#9019527

To me highlights the crux of your position.

You're proving my point scooty.

What is your point?

No I'm not. I'm merely advocating a pragmatic view here.

No you aren't. You're reflexively defending a system you misunderstand and you're doing a rather poor job at.

Tell me exactly what I'm not understanding about this sytem?

What's beyond dumb is that you're complaining simply because you don't like the outcome.

Do I like that Trump won? Nope. Do I like that Clinton lost? Yep.

Hey, we agree on something!

Is the Electoral College undemocratic and anti-republic? Yep.

Ah... system sucks eh?

No. You are merely whining.

Actually I'm not. I'm laying out the problems in our flawed system of electing a head of state, something that I've care about for more than two weeks.

Which you seem to advocate quite strenuously.

Childish?

Yes, you have a childish view of politics, something you've made perfectly clear in all of these stupid threads.

Says someone who likes to personally attack others...

Jeeze... it's wrong to empathize with you that your favored candidate lost?

My "favored candidate" did lose because I never had one. The person I supported in the primaries didn't make it to general election.

Scooty... it just seems you're rather emotionally invested here...

It's not like I'm shoving my shadenboner in everyone's face every chance I could...

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

...
smdh

Chillax man.

I'm not unchill, I'm just tired of your bs "arguments" that have no basis in reality.

...ah there you go.

No... I mean being invested in so much of a particular outcome and realizing that it's going to be a loooooong 4/8 years.

Aren't you supposedly #NeverTrump? Did you want the same outcome as me?

I already moved into that acceptance phase where America is boned not matter who won.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
IN a popular vote (or like) system, large swath of the electorate would still be ignored.

Okay, I've explained this maybe three times to you now, and each time you've jsut ignored it. Here it is again, please read this, and either accept it or try and claim why it is wrong. Don't just ignore my argument and continue spamming yours. Okay, here we go...

Let's say you and I are running for the presidency under a popular vote system. You notice early on that 60% of all votes are in cities, and just 40% in country areas. You decide on an election strategy focusing just on that 60% of votes, spending all your campaign money on ads and rallies in the cities. Whereas I target voters wherever they are, spending 60% of my money on voters in the cities, and 40% of my money on voters in rural areas.

We both have even campaign funds, let's say we each have $100 million. This means that 60% of voters, the city voters, will be exposed to $100 million of your campaign spend, and $60 million of my campaign spend. That's a 67% advantage in spending, which is considerable but nothing overwhelming. They will hear your ads more than mine, but they will still here both our ads. You will tour each city more than me, but we will both still have a presence in every city. So it will advantage you, but nothing crazy. Let's say from a position where we were both equally liked in cities, your big spending and focus there drives you to a 4 point win in the cities, 52 to 48.

But out in the country, well I spend $40 million to your nothing and I tour through many regional areas. People there see a bunch of my ads, they see my tour bus going through their areas, while they don't see you at all. You have no ads responding to whatever attacks I make against you, you have no ads trying to challenge whatever crazy claims and promises I want to put on the airwaves. Obviously this is going to give me a massive advantage among rural voters, probably at least 20 points, and realistically it would probably be more than that. It is very easy for voters to feel resentful of a candidate who ignores them

So the upshot is that you win 52% of the 60% who live in cities, and 40% of the 40% who live in rural areas. That gives you 47% to my 52%, and that's giving you a very generous share of the vote in areas you ignored completely.

The optimum strategy for this is to aim for every vote you can, wherever it is.

Sure, the optimum strategy is to aim for every vote you can...

But, wouldn't you get "more bang for your buck and time" if you primarily hit the populous areas?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Remember guys, the important thing is that Hillary lost.

That's one good thing... at least.

We got the Governor who gave the energy companies free reign in Oklahoma and who oversaw our rise as the most earthquake riddled state in the union in the running for Secretary of the Interior.

So... more earthquakes in store for the rest of the country?

We got an Breitbart News whispering in Trump's ear and we got white supremacists shouting Heil Trump, and the only response is Trump complaining about the mean cast of Hamilton on Twitter.

I know right?

and Trump settled an actual con job case for 25 million dollars. The mind boggles that this isn't be jammed down everyone's throat. The only thing that makes sense is that Cheeto Jesus is enjoying some sort of honeymoon period?

We got people doing every single fething thing Hillary did in the new administration being defended by the people who a few weeks ago were bitching about every single fething thing Hillary did.

Wut?

There is no "new administration" yet. That doesn't happen till Jan. 20th. What are you yammering about?

But the important thing is that the Red Team Won and we are just bitching about loosing a game of politics because we suck as playing Twittah or something. It's not about real world consequences, it's not about actual living breathing people being affected by politics. It's a fething game and the only things that matters is that your team got a score.

And as long as we argue with the players we are participating in their stupid game, so why do we keep on rolling the dice with them?

Well... you gotta admit, Democrats just got their teeth kicked in. So, they'll need to dust off, recalibrate and get back in the political thunderdome.

 whembly wrote:

But the important thing is that the Red Team Won and we are just bitching about loosing a game of politics because we suck as playing Twittah or something. It's not about real world consequences, it's not about actual living breathing people being affected by politics. It's a fething game and the only things that matters is that your team got a score.

And as long as we argue with the players we are participating in their stupid game, so why do we keep on rolling the dice with them?

Well... you gotta admit, Democrats just got their teeth kicked in. So, they'll need to dust off, recalibrate and get back in the political thunderdome.

Most of the posts I've seen are (aside from the Hamilton and university things), are, for example, concerns over major players in the new administration thinking that electrocuting gay people is a really awesome idea that's worth funding.

 whembly wrote:
Sure, the optimum strategy is to aim for every vote you can...

But, wouldn't you get "more bang for your buck and time" if you primarily hit the populous areas?

Well, the optimum strategy would be to focus on the city in proportion to the overall population. So if 60% live in cities, then 60% of the vote would go there. That's pretty much what any model with declining utility of spending is going to produce.

A more complicated model could add some variation, such as changing the cost of advertising in different regions. But given right now ads are actually more expensive in city areas (because consumers there are richer and therefore more desired by traditional advertising) then if anything you'd end up with a disproportionate focus on ads in the country. Campaign stops would be the flip side of that, because you can speak to a lot more people and contact a lot more people in a city with a campaign stop than in a small town. But there'd be a balance there as well, because stopping in New York for a fourth time is unlikely to be much more valuable, whereas any visit to a smaller area will boost support and enthusiasm, especially if the opponent is seen as ignoring the country.

Well... you gotta admit, Democrats just got their teeth kicked in. So, they'll need to dust off, recalibrate and get back in the political thunderdome.

Well, yes and no. It was hardly a huge loss, they gained senate seats, and in the presidency Clinton was within 1.5% in enough states to swing the result. Trump had a fairly lucky night with most of the close states just breaking his way, to give him a surprisingly high EV count. But move those swing states 2% and Clinton is well over 300 EV. So on that front it is hardly panic stations.

The flip side to this is that only gaining 2 senate seats is a really crappy result, when this was the 2010 cycle of senators that was up for re-election, Democrats would have wanted more than 2 seats gained from that disastrous election. And the other part is that despite winning the popular vote in the presidential election, Democrats still lost the vote for the House of Reps by 3.5 million votes. That means they are basically miles behind there, because they have to win many millions more votes just to tie the house. And of course, on a state level Republicans are extending their dominance.

To me, I guess the conclusion is that while all the focus after the election was on Trump and Clinton, to me it looks like the overall Republican brand held up pretty well despite Trump, while the overall Democrat brand dropped without a strong presidential candidate.

To see where that leaves the two parties, I'd say it's clear that the Republican advantage in mobilised voters is as strong as ever, they reliably get out and vote, and they vote right down the ticket. I mean, if you can get 60 million to turn out and vote for Trump, you've got something going really well. Democrats on the other hand are as fickle as always, and even the ones that do vote don't vote right down the ticket.

On the other hand, I think it's telling that Democrats weren't far off, and will now get to campaign from a position of no power, as opposed to this election where they had just come off eight years in the whitehouse. 2008 was a huge year for Democrats, not just winning the presidency, but also winning the house, and a 60 seat majority in the senate. While much of that was sold on Obama, the reality is that Republicans were stuck coming off a president with approval ratings under 20%. It shouldn't be too hard to see Democrats gaining a lot of ground just like did that time, and they don't actually have to gain much to win a lot of power. And that was when they got to run against Bush, and this time its Donald Trump. Democrats will gain from every broken promise and every feth up Trump makes. And I think we can all be pretty confident there'll be a lot of each of those.

The first clear idea will come in 2018. There's a lot of Democratic senate seats up for grabs then, the Democratic gains from the 2012 presidential year election. Republicans would be confident of picking up seats like they do in most mid-terms, if they can't make any gains then 2020 could be a pretty good year for Democrats. If Democrats make gains in 2018, then 2020 could be huge.

 whembly wrote:
Riiiight... I seriously doubt you'd be having this much of an indignant reaction had Clinton won.

If she had won in the same manner as Trump (considerably less actual votes but more electoral votes)? You're goddam right I'd have the same reaction. I don't like the Electoral College now and I haven't for at least the last 20+ years for all of the reasons that I have repeatedly laid out in this thread.

I remember you complaining about the human element of the electoral voters... particularly the unfaithful electors. But, this much agitation over the results of this elections indicates to me that you were hoping for Clinton to win.

No. I don't know how many times you need this explained to you, but my issues with the electoral system have zero to do with the two clowns that ran for president this year.

Just because you "pointed it out pages ago" doesn't mean you're right.

Candidates will go and campaign where the votes will be. Can you at least admit that?

Yeah, I pointed it out, I'm correct, you ignored it because that's what you do. And yes, candidates will campaign with the votes are, but without the Electoral College, that increases the areas in which they need to spend time and money, something I've already brought up and you've once again ignored. Focusing solely on major population centers and expecting to win a plurality of votes isn't mathematically possible.

gak response. You have yet to push for a better idea.

Actually, I have on more than one occasion, you just ignore it like you typically do. My personal preferred method of voting is ranked choice vote, but that will probably never happen in this country so in the mean time, the best thing I can hope for is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which is also probably unlikely any time soon). So, once again, you ignore what I actually write and go with a gak response because that's the best you have.

But, go ahead... keep on complaining if it's cathartic for you.

I'm not complaining, I'm explaining why you have nothing but gak arguments that are wrong.

I know you've brought up criticism in the past, but this response:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/9210/698575.page#9019527

To me highlights the crux of your position.

If you read what I wrote, my position is that given two possible voting systems, electoral college or popular vote, the popular vote is a better system. Nothing about that makes it best system, something that I've said on more than one occasion.

Tell me exactly what I'm not understanding about this sytem?

Go back and read what I wrote. The College doesn't protect the small states, it wasn't implemented because of "federalism," and it doesn't preserve the idea of sovereign states. It is, at it's very core, undemocratic and anti-republic, two things that are indefensible.

Ah... system sucks eh?

Yep.

Says someone who likes to personally attack others...

Grow up, Whembly. I'm not attacking you; you have a childish view of politics. You only care about "winning" and your "team." That is childish no matter what way you slice it.

Scooty... it just seems you're rather emotionally invested here...

No, I just care.

But, wouldn't you get "more bang for your buck and time" if you primarily hit the populous areas?

No, because as it's been explained to you multiple times, there isn't enough people in those areas to carry the plurality of votes while ignoring most of the country, and expect to win an election. Seriously, what part of that is so difficult to understand?

 whembly wrote:
Sure, the optimum strategy is to aim for every vote you can...

But, wouldn't you get "more bang for your buck and time" if you primarily hit the populous areas?

And what do you think candidates do now? Someone already told you the exact numbers, but remember how both candidates ignored large parts of the country and focused on high-density areas in key states? In fact, even if the optimal strategy is to put 100% of your effort into cities and ignore rural areas entirely that's still progress from where we are now, because at least voters in cities in "safe" states will be available to be persuaded. Right now if you live in a "safe" red/blue state, whether it's an urban or rural area, your vote is irrelevant. Your state is 99.9999% guaranteed to give its electoral votes to the same party every year, so why bother campaigning or paying any attention to you? But if you have a direct vote for president this no longer happens, pockets of red/blue in a blue/red state are now worth paying attention to because their votes count for just as much as similar regions in the states that are currently contested.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But, wouldn't you get "more bang for your buck and time" if you primarily hit the populous areas?

No, because as it's been explained to you multiple times, there isn't enough people in those areas to carry the plurality of votes while ignoring most of the country, and expect to win an election. Seriously, what part of that is so difficult to understand?

And before we see the same "look at the blue counties" map that always gets thrown around as some sort of magical argument that the major population centers are the only place democrats exist and that they will be the battle ground of the future because no other place matters, here is the counter point:



The "red counties/blue counties" map is only important if you care about "winners/losers", but the important thing is not who won each county but who lives in each county. And Democrats and Republicans live in every single county, and they voted for both in every single county. The only thing that will change is the percentages in each county, especially in states that are "safe" for either party. If we had a nationwide vote I would have voted for Hillary, because my vote wouldn't have been a fart in the wind in a red state that was called as soon as the polls closed.

Edit:

Another article on maps that seems relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/how-election-maps-lie/

The problem here, Whembly, is that you're not actually interested in having this discussion. You just shrug your shoulders and say, "It sucks but it's what we have." That's not good enough and there is no discussion to be had with that attitude.

Whether you think that the President should represent the states or the people is inconsequential to the problems facing the College. The Electoral College is undemocratic and much worse, by its own rules, it's anti-republic. If you favor the the College, you have to come to terms those facts. We all aren't represented equally by our vote only based on where we happen to live at the time that vote is cast. I've mentioned faithless electors because that's where the anti-republicanism comes in. By the rules of the College, these people are not beholden to your will and are free to act on their own volition in an attempt to protect you from yourself. How can we call ourselves a republic when the supreme power is not vested in the people but a small number of unknown, unelected, party insiders?

No, that particular nightmare situation has not happened in the past and hopefully will not happen in the future, but why leave it open to happen? Whether you're in favor of the College or not, saying, "Because that's just the way it is," isn't really an acceptable answer.

 d-usa wrote:
Remember guys, the important thing is that Hillary lost.

We got the Governor who gave the energy companies free reign in Oklahoma and who oversaw our rise as the most earthquake riddled state in the union in the running for Secretary of the Interior.

We got an Breitbart News whispering in Trump's ear and we got white supremacists shouting Heil Trump, and the only response is Trump complaining about the mean cast of Hamilton on Twitter.

We got people doing every single fething thing Hillary did in the new administration being defended by the people who a few weeks ago were bitching about every single fething thing Hillary did.


But the important thing is that the Red Team Won and we are just bitching about loosing a game of politics because we suck as playing Twittah or something. It's not about real world consequences, it's not about actual living breathing people being affected by politics. It's a fething game and the only things that matters is that your team got a score.

And as long as we argue with the players we are participating in their stupid game, so why do we keep on rolling the dice with them?

Having read articles and watched documentaries about Oklahoma and the fracking earthquakes, you have my sympathy.

Hopefully, a way will be found to fix the problem and even more hopefully, the people of your state will boot out the idiots responsible for giving the green light to this mess.

But as for your other points, you talk as though it were a new thing in American politics or politics in general...

I glance over at my bookshelf and see a John Adams biography and there is a section in it about the bitter election he had against Jefferson. A lot of bad blood there and the friendship between them disintegrated. They never spoke again or years....

So Trump Vs. Clinton, and the hostility by both sides, is nothing new in American politics...

Hopefully, it will pass.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Japan could be ok with that population, it might even do better for their environment. Even 80 million is a lot for that country. They would have to change their mentality about lifetime employment and how they handle it, but thats up to them to decide. They are not very welcoming of non-Japanese as it is.

It would not be okay unless it forces those old people to work and then that is just delaying the inevitable. No country is sustainable when over a third of its population is beyond the working age.

Japan either needs to massively increase its birthrate (it is currently around 1.4 and would need to go up to around 2.1 to reach a sustainable population of around a hundred million, which is the governments aim) or bring in more immigrants to plug the gaps in its labour supply.

That USED to be the case. In a modern 1st world country, that may be the ideal, if not even more.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Having read articles and watched documentaries about Oklahoma and the fracking earthquakes, you have my sympathy.

Hopefully, a way will be found to fix the problem and even more hopefully, the people of your state will boot out the idiots responsible for giving the green light to this mess.

Maybe she can make "America Quake Again".

But as for your other points, you talk as though it were a new thing in American politics or politics in general...

I glance over at my bookshelf and see a John Adams biography and there is a section in it about the bitter election he had against Jefferson. A lot of bad blood there and the friendship between them disintegrated. They never spoke again or years....

So Trump Vs. Clinton, and the hostility by both sides, is nothing new in American politics...

Hopefully, it will pass.

I agree, it's really nothing new.

My main purpose of those points was to show that my concern with them is not that "my team lost/his team won", but that they concern me for actual reasons other than simply being "issues of Team Red".

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I live in Ottawa, Canada's capitol city..

You definitely have very little experience with Texans then. Let me try and explain Texas and it's people through one of my own experiences with them:

I was in a fairly large brawl between a group of Irishmen and a group of Texans. Two particularly brawny Irishmen tagged the same Texan on both sides of the head at once. Down he goes, and I think to myself 'Damn, we killed that guy'. Nope, three min later, he pops up again, grins like he's really grateful we did that to him, and starts right back into the brawl.

Now do you understand why you will get no where with a Texan telling him that his 'neighbors are dangerous'. Because he's just as dangerous. The lot of them work really well together because everyone knows that everyone else is just as bad as the next guy, so they tend to get along. Anyone who starts gak usually ends up shot. Texas has been that way since the Republic, and I doubt they're gonna change any time soon. And I admire that about them.

At last someone who understands.
"Texas is for winners."
-Genghis Connie, explaining why the Cubs would never have made it in Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Yeah, and it's a really stupid argument no matter what way you slice it. The Electoral College doesn't protect the small states or the less populated areas of the country when a minimum of 11 states (the most most populous, as it were) is needed to win the election. You're arguing that the plurality of people shouldn't have the say in who represents in the Office of the President them solely based on where they live, which is fething stupid.

Not really.

What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

Lets not rehash this garbage all over again. If you want to change the EC put it up for Constitutional Amendment., until then quit yer bichin.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A gas tax is regressive. Why do you hate poor people?

Any regressive element in a tax can be offset by progressive elements elsewhere. For instance, you could adjust income tax rates so that the most or all of the burden of the tax falls on the rich in its overall effect.

But probably more importantly, Trump and the Republicans are going to put in place a tax cut that benefits the rich almost entirely. I haven't heard you complain abotu this once... but now suddenly you're concerned about the mild regressive impact of a tax on gas. That doesn't seem very consistent.

Use taxes like you envision never work UNLESS you tax things people MUST use...like food and gas. These are, ofcourse, regressive by their nature. And the offsets that you speak of don't really apply to federal taxes. The bottom 40 some odd percent of people pay no federal taxes. Any offset wouldn't effect them.

And if it did...what would be the point? The reason to raise taxes is to increase revenue. Raising it just to give it back makes no sense. Rather than go through mental gymanstics and include new regulations over multiple revenue streams, just use the system that we have and increase income taxes for thos emaking over $250k per year. Simple.

ender502