General politics

[ewen21]

 

The costs would be in the logistics, insurance, and facilities.  But I think it is feasible.  If we can bus kids to school and keep them there all day without killing or losing too many of 'em, we can do this too.

You obviously aren't serious.  I think we could do much better here if you actually tried to develop your thought.  

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 I think we could do much better here if you actually tried to develop your thought.  

LOL

[ewen21]

 

LOL

 

Or not.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Or not.

Why don't you develop your thought that people on welfare can't help themselves so they can't be involved in child care?

[ewen21]

 

Why don't you develop your thought that people on welfare can't help themselves so they can't be involved in child care?

I didn't say we should exclude every single welfare recipient from the opportunity to work in childcare.  I said I didn't think it was a good idea to make this some kind of government initiative

 

 

 

[ewen21]

You presented the idea and have not developed the thought beyond "wouldn't it be nice if"

 

 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I didn't say we should exclude every single welfare recipient from the opportunity to work in childcare.  I said I didn't think it was a good idea to make this some kind of government initiative

On what basis of fact do you make that claim?

 

You presented the idea and have not developed the thought beyond "wouldn't it be nice if"

Look, I'm floating a reasonable idea. You shoot it down with a blanket derogatory statement about people on welfare.  And frankly, I don't need to demonstrate my seriousness to your satisfaction, it's especially ironic, given how glib you've been on a number of topics.  I'm sorry to say it but it's hard to have a conversation with you in a good faith.

[ewen21]

Sorry man.  I just don't think your idea can be implemented.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sorry man.  I just don't think your idea can be implemented.

Upon what factual basis do you think this?

[biggentleben]

 

Yes, adoption was part of it but ICWA is just hard overall. It adds another layer of uncertainty to a situation already rife with uncertainty. Perhaps the most important job of a foster parent is to provide security and stability. ICWA makes an already hard job almost impossible.

 

Working the process with five who all have ICWA, I will say that it completely depends on the state and their relationship with their tribes. South Dakota's social services system and the tribal leadership work very well hand-in-hand, and frankly, we're already getting significant support from the tribes of our kids in just expressing interest in ensuring they are brought up experiencing Native culture. Scholarships to camps provided by the tribes, offers to come to pow-wows and celebrations, and even one particular leader who has my personal number and offered to come utilize local facilities and do a sweat with my children.

 

Like most things within social services, the quality of relationship will determine the quality of service from the state end of things, and the funding behind them will determine the amount of action they can take.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Working the process with five who all have ICWA, I will say that it completely depends on the state and their relationship with their tribes. South Dakota's social services system and the tribal leadership work very well hand-in-hand, and frankly, we're already getting significant support from the tribes of our kids in just expressing interest in ensuring they are brought up experiencing Native culture. Scholarships to camps provided by the tribes, offers to come to pow-wows and celebrations, and even one particular leader who has my personal number and offered to come utilize local facilities and do a sweat with my children.

 

Like most things within social services, the quality of relationship will determine the quality of service from the state end of things, and the funding behind them will determine the amount of action they can take.

That's super heartening to hear!  Good on each of you, the tribes and the state!

[biggentleben]

I was at a retreat this weekend, and I got into an electoral college discussion with someone. When I explained my thought of how to re-vamp the EC, this hard-core old-school Republican was taken aback at how much it made sense, and he asked me to send him a breakdown (if I didn't mind working it out) of the last election with the method I mentioned. He liked it and really liked the way it broke down more fair to represent the will of the entire country.

 

Of course, breaking down numbers is never a thing I mind, so I did it, and I will first explain my methodology...

 

I think complete and utter overhaul of the EC is a non-starter for many of the flyover states. While most of those same folks fight hard because they believe that they win more elections this way due to losing out otherwise to the "dirty, mean coasts", the reality is that the second-largest electoral college vote block belongs to a traditionally-Republican voting state in Texas. Then, tied for third-largest are a traditionally left-leaning state in New York, but also one that is usually quite split in Florida. Tied for fifth-largest is an oft-conservative state in Pennsylvania along with Illinois. Looking more at that could make this more feasible.

 

Essentially, each state's popular vote is then forced into its electoral votes. A few caveats to numbers - every state must have a winner, so a state like Minnesota in a near 50/50 will give 6 votes to the winner of the state, while a state with just 9 could see a close winner with 5 electoral votes. Percentages round up for the winner of the state when it comes down to percentages of one vote leftover among candidates. Outside of that, if, for instance, with Minnesota's 10 votes, if one candidate earned 60.1% of the vote, another candidate earned 30.2% and a third candidate had earned 4.9% while the rest of the field ate up the remaining 4.8%, that third candidate would get one electoral vote.

 

It seems difficult, but it does end up better representing how the country truly voted, I believe, and since I put it together for this gentleman, I figured I'd share it with everyone here:

Alabama 9 = 6 Trump, 3 Clinton

Alaska 3 = 2 Trump, 1 Clinton (8 Trump, 4 Clinton)
Arizona 11 = 6 Trump, 5 Clinton (14 Trump, 9 Clinton)
Arkansas 6 = 4 Trump, 2 Clinton (18 Trump, 11 Clinton)
California 55 = 34 Clinton, 18 Trump, 1 Johnson (45 Clinton, 36 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Colorado 9 = 5 Clinton, 4 Trump (50 Clinton, 40 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Connecticut 7 = 4 Clinton, 3 Trump (54 Clinton, 43 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Delaware 3 = 2 Clinton, 1 Trump (56 Clinton, 44 Trump, 1 Johnson)
DC 3 = 3 Clinton (59 Clinton, 44 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Florida 29 = 15 Trump, 14 Clinton (73 Clinton, 59 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Georgia 16 = 9 Trump, 7 Clinton (80 Clinton, 68 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Hawaii 4 = 3 Clinton, 1 Trump (83 Clinton, 69 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Idaho 4 = 3 Trump, 1 Clinton (84 Clinton, 72 Trump, 1 Johnson)
Illinois 20 = 11 Clinton, 8 Trump, 1 Johnson (95 Clinton, 80 Trump, 2 Johnson)
Indiana 11 = 6 Trump, 4 Clinton, 1 Johnson (99 Clinton, 86 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Iowa 6 = 4 Trump, 2 Clinton (101 Clinton, 90 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Kansas 6 = 4 Trump, 2 Clinton (103 Clinton, 94 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Kentucky 8 = 5 Trump, 3 Clinton (106 Clinton, 99 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Louisiana 8 = 5 Trump, 3 Clinton (109 Clinton, 104 Trump, 3 Johnson)
*Maine 4 = 3 Clinton, 1 Trump (112 Clinton, 105 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Maryland 10 = 7 Clinton, 3 Trump (119 Clinton, 108 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Massachusetts 11 = 7 Clinton, 4 Trump (126 Clinton, 112 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Michigan 16 = 9 Trump, 7 Clinton (133 Clinton, 121 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Minnesota 10 = 6 Clinton, 4 Trump (139 Clinton, 125 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Mississippi 6 = 4 Trump, 2 Clinton (141 Clinton, 129 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Missouri 10 = 6 Trump, 4 Clinton (145 Clinton, 135 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Montana 3 = 2 Trump, 1 Clinton (146 Clinton, 137 Trump, 3 Johnson
Nebraska 5 = 3 Trump, 2 Clinton (148 Clinton, 140 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Nevada 6 = 4 Clinton, 2 Trump (152 Clinton, 142 Trump, 3 Johnson)
New Hampshire 4 = 3 Clinton, 1 Trump (155 Clinton, 143 Trump, 3 Johnson)
New Jersey 14 = 8 Clinton, 6 Trump (163 Clinton, 149 Trump, 3 Johnson)
New Mexico 5 = 3 Clinton, 2 Trump (166 Clinton, 151 Trump, 3 Johnson)
New York 29 = 17 Clinton, 12 Trump (183 Clinton, 163 Trump, 3 Johnson)
North Carolina 15 = 8 Trump, 7 Clinton (190 Clinton, 171 Trump, 3 Johnson)
North Dakota 3 = 2 Trump, 1 Clinton (191 Clinton, 173 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Ohio 18 = 10 Trump, 8 Clinton (199 Clinton, 183 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Oklahoma 7 = 5 Trump, 2 Clinton (201 Clinton, 187 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Oregon 7 = Clinton 5, Trump 2 (206 Clinton, 189 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Pennsylvania 20 = Trump 11, Clinton 9 (215 Clinton, 200 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Rhode Island 4 = Clinton 3, Trump 1 (218 Clinton, Trump 201, 3 Johnson)
South Carolina 9 = 5 Trump, 4 Clinton (222 Clinton, 206 Trump, 3 Johnson)
South Dakota 3 = 2 Trump, 1 Clinton (223 Clinton, 208 Trump, 3 Johnson)
Tennessee 11 = 7 Trump, 4 Clinton (227 Clinton, 215 Trump, 3 Johnson
Texas 38 = 20 Trump, 17 Clinton, 1 Johnson (244 Clinton, 235 Trump, 4 Johnson)
Utah 6 = 3 Trump, 2 Clinton, 1 McMullin (246 Clinton, 238 Trump, 4 Johnson, 1 McMullin)
Vermont 3 = 2 Clinton, 1 Trump (248 Clinton, 239 Trump, 4 Johnson, 1 McMullin
Virginia 13 = Clinton 7, Trump 6 (255 Clinton, 245 Trump, 4 Johnson, 1 McMullin
Washinton 12 = 7 Clinton, 4 Trump, 1 Johnson (262 Clinton, 249 Trump, 5 Johnson, 1 McMullin)
West Virginia 5 = 4 Trump, 1 Clinton (263 Clinton, 253 Trump, 5 Johnson, 1 McMullin)
Wisconsin 10 = 6 Trump, 4 Clinton (267 Clinton, 259 Trump, 5 Johnson, 1 McMullin)
Wyoming 3 = 2 Trump, 1 Clinton (268 Clinton, 261 Trump, 5 Johnson, 1 McMullin)

 

Final tally

Clinton 268

Trump 261

Johnson 5

McMullin 1

 

*Maine does a version of this already, so the numbers you see for split are actually how they voted in the EC in 2016.

[Badsmerf]

Ben, I did a version of that methodology for every election the last 20 years. It changes 2016, but Bush still wins in 2000. Also gives a voice to third party candidates. If you're interested, I could seems it to you or post it here.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Ben, I did a version of that methodology for every election the last 20 years. It changes 2016, but Bush still wins in 2000. Also gives a voice to third party candidates. If you're interested, I could seems it to you or post it here.

Post it, if your data is amendable to this forum's software.  Try the code tags if it's spreadsheet like (perhaps an obvious tip).

[biggentleben]

 

Ben, I did a version of that methodology for every election the last 20 years. It changes 2016, but Bush still wins in 2000. Also gives a voice to third party candidates. If you're interested, I could seems it to you or post it here.

 

When I've gone through the numbers in recent elections, it's usually been closer than the final numbers, though it doesn't change much. That's the point, though. I'm not sure an overhaul that'd lead to changes in half of the elections of the last 50 years would be something that'd fly.

[Badsmerf]

Year Dem EC   DemPop% DemEC%  Rep EC   RepPop% RepEC% OtherPop% EC%     Total Votes

1980	49	41.01%	221	489	50.75%	273	8.24%	36	86,509,678
1984	13	40.56%	217	525	58.77%	318	0.67%	0	92,653,233
1988	245	45.65%	245	426	53.37%	288	0.98%	0	91,594,686
1992	370	43.01%	231	168	37.45%	202	19.54%	102	104,423,923
1996	379	49.24%	264	159	40.71%	220	10.05%	45	96,275,401
2000	267	48.38%	258	271	47.87%	259	3.75%	15	105,405,100
2004	251	48.27%	258	286	50.73%	275	1.00%	4	122,294,846
2008	365	52.93%	283	173	45.65%	247	1.42%	3	131,313,820
2012	332	51.06%	270	206	47.20%	254	1.74%	5	129,085,410
2016	227	48.18%	253	304	46.09%	247	5.73%	10	136,669,276

 

[Badsmerf]

Ugh. I just wrote an explanation and it was deleted... Hate that. 

 

Anyway, I used state popular vote % and allocated it to each state's EC votes. The result is the EC% row. This still give George W. an outright win in 2000, albeit a razor thin win. Hopefully the rest is self explanatory... I had a nice write-up and don't care to go through it all again. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Working the process with five who all have ICWA, I will say that it completely depends on the state and their relationship with their tribes. South Dakota's social services system and the tribal leadership work very well hand-in-hand, and frankly, we're already getting significant support from the tribes of our kids in just expressing interest in ensuring they are brought up experiencing Native culture. Scholarships to camps provided by the tribes, offers to come to pow-wows and celebrations, and even one particular leader who has my personal number and offered to come utilize local facilities and do a sweat with my children.

 

Like most things within social services, the quality of relationship will determine the quality of service from the state end of things, and the funding behind them will determine the amount of action they can take.

I'm super-happy that you have had a good experience but I think it extends past local relationships. There are ways to subvert the process and those examples may not be rampantly used, but they exist. We know someone whose bio-mom tried to avoid losing their kid through ICWA and a very tenuous relationship with an Alaskan (!) tribe.

 

Thankfully, the court saw through the attempt and thwarted it quickly. But there are plenty of cases out there of biological parents and far-reaching tribes being real pains in the asses and using ICWA not in the spirit of the law, but in its letter (which, from what I understand, can be pretty vague at times, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the details).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ugh. I just wrote an explanation and it was deleted... Hate that. 

 

Anyway, I used state popular vote % and allocated it to each state's EC votes. The result is the EC% row. This still give George W. an outright win in 2000, albeit a razor thin win. Hopefully the rest is self explanatory... I had a nice write-up and don't care to go through it all again. 

 

I like it.  I'm all for changes with the intent of keeping the republic/democratic tyranny in check while also eliminating some of hte nonsense the EC creates.  I think you've got a pretty damn good sketch right there.

[Badsmerf]

Well, this method would prevent tyranny of the few over the many. I don't think the EC was created in order to give small states or a select few states more emphasis than others.

 

By integrating popular vote percentage, a Republican vote in Idaho can count about as much as a Republican vote in Florida. It gives incentive to campaign in all states, and would force the parties to the center. There won't be battleground states anymore.

 

The down ballot will become even more important, which means the local elections will recruit better candidates that appeal to more people.

 

We have to do something. Dismissing 3m difference in popular vote isn't democracy.

[NumberThree]

 

Well, this method would prevent tyranny of the few over the many. I don't think the EC was created in order to give small states or a select few states more emphasis than others.

By integrating popular vote percentage, a Republican vote in Idaho can count about as much as a Republican vote in Florida. It gives incentive to campaign in all states, and would force the parties to the center. There won't be battleground states anymore.

The down ballot will become even more important, which means the local elections will recruit better candidates that appeal to more people.

We have to do something. Dismissing 3m difference in popular vote isn't democracy.

The EC is outdated. Period. It's institution was to protect white, slave owners, and give them a larger voice in the presidency.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, this method would prevent tyranny of the few over the many. I don't think the EC was created in order to give small states or a select few states more emphasis than others.

By integrating popular vote percentage, a Republican vote in Idaho can count about as much as a Republican vote in Florida. It gives incentive to campaign in all states, and would force the parties to the center. There won't be battleground states anymore.

The down ballot will become even more important, which means the local elections will recruit better candidates that appeal to more people.

We have to do something. Dismissing 3m difference in popular vote isn't democracy.

 

Correct, but we're also not a democracy.  We're a democratic republic.  People can talk all they want about the origin of the EC or any of the effects, but the simple truth is some sort of system beyond the popular vote was going to be in place.  And should be - it's for good reason the straight popular vote is not the way we decide our most important elections.

 

I like a combination effort and yours is a good attempt at that.  I'm over the "every eight years we switch sides" on this pissing contest and I like to think your mentality is a good approach to eliminating the problem of popular vote, expanding the way candidates have to reach out, and honoring every vote.

[Mike Sixel]

Healthcare and what other two things should be the main message in the next election?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Healthcare and what other two things should be the main message in the next election?

Campaign finance. The climate.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Campaign finance. The climate.

I'd make it Campaign finance/corruption.  Taxes is also up there for me.  Need revenue to pay for things.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd make it Campaign finance/corruption. Taxes is also up there for me. Need revenue to pay for things.

I think there are 5-6 answers to that question and I wouldn’t argue with any of them.

[TheLeviathan]

Healthcare and what other two things should be the main message in the next election?

Economy and Supreme Court

[Mike Sixel]

from the numlock news daily email today:

 

The SAT costs $47.50 — $64.50 with the essay portion — and the ACT will set students back $50.50, or $67 with the writing portion. AP tests cost $94 to take. All this means that simply in order to get the credentials needed in order to pursue higher education, students with more money already have an edge over students with less money. It’s not like the nonprofits who administer the exams are hard up: Educational Testing Service conducts the SAT for the College Board, and you can probably guess what ACT Inc. runs. ETS had $1.4 billion in revenue in their most recent tax return, while ACT Inc made over $353 million.

Jaya Saxena, Vox

 

I don't think people realize how uneven the playing field can be......94 dollars to take an AP test?

 

And, those non-profits continue to roll in money......

[PseudoSABR]

 

from the numlock news daily email today:

 

The SAT costs $47.50 — $64.50 with the essay portion — and the ACT will set students back $50.50, or $67 with the writing portion. AP tests cost $94 to take. All this means that simply in order to get the credentials needed in order to pursue higher education, students with more money already have an edge over students with less money. It’s not like the nonprofits who administer the exams are hard up: Educational Testing Service conducts the SAT for the College Board, and you can probably guess what ACT Inc. runs. ETS had $1.4 billion in revenue in their most recent tax return, while ACT Inc made over $353 million.

Jaya Saxena, Vox

 

I don't think people realize how uneven the playing field can be......94 dollars to take an AP test?

 

And, those non-profits continue to roll in money......

I took four or five AP tests, and my folks were lower middle class; I just had no appreciation of the costs to them. (And all the credit I got, in math/science/political science, went to nothing since I became an English major)

[TheLeviathan]

The whole college system is broken.  I can't think of any component of it in today's world that doesn't suck terribly and need to change.  From frats, to exams, to tuition, to sports corruption, poor academics, free speech, etc.  Broken.  All of it.