You have missed the point. I posted a few facts on the election and you pop up and start to throw down straw men all over the place.
“ZEB you didn’t mention the Texas Poll”
Really? I didn’t mention the Kansas poll either or any other state poll so what? That’s not what my post was about.
“ZEB one poll doesn’t mean anything”
As I said first poll showing him ahead
bla bla bla…
What was your point?
You had none just wanted to type I get it
The U.S. Constitution requires that each district have about the same population: each federal district within a state must have about the same number of people, each state district within a state must have about the same number of people, and each local district within its jurisdiction must have about the same number of people
Touche,… although I read recently it wouldn’t of change the Romney/Obama election, so I’m surprised by all the red on the map (not a very scientific way of looking at it)
Edit: I’ll try to find where I read that, but not sure if I’ll be able to dig it up. Even if it wouldn’t have change the election for the people who voted, I still think giving people like me (I’m in Texas) a chance to make their vote count would be worthwhile.
Edit2: Also looking closer at the map, its hard to see some districts that are so small in the dense NE, compared to North Dakota/Montana areas where a district is the whole state. Curious how many blue districts vs. red to more accurately compare.
That Harvard article with the map said using VA redistricting plan would have given Romney EC victory by 16 while losing popular by 4%.
Actually it is a state’s prerogative to determine how EC votes are applied according to Constitution.
I’ll try to dig a bit and see if we are comparing apples to apples. I would think going more granular (district level) the EC would reflect the popular vote more accurately.
I would guess you need to look at House district which has 700-750,000 inhabitants versus that county result
Guessing there is an actual spreadsheet that the map resourced, if you happen to know district number or perhaps representative… hehe
I agree with the EC criticism, particularly because I live in a solid state that nobody will ever visit except to beg millions off the downtown derivatives-jockeys.
On the other hand, have you ever been in a swing state during the autumn of an election year? The quantity (and quality) of radio and TV ads alone are almost enough for me to appreciate my present position at the irrelevant margin of electoral politics.
It will be the difference-maker in a tied or even close election. Trump has shown again and again that he can’t get even this basic kind of stuff right, and I’m told he’s got essentially nothing in this respect. One informed guy I know says Trump has to be polling 2 points over Clinton on November 7 for any chance of actually winning the election.
Like I said, literally means nothing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294746-clinton-touts-95-military-endorsements
Rush read some of this on the air today. Some valid points.
The flight 93 election
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/#.V81-TGBriL4.facebook
The reform would be a Herculean lift. As someone pointed out, and as we see from Maine and Nebraska, states have some discretion to decide how electoral votes go. But to nationalize any change, it would have to be an amendment to the Consfitution.
And there are too many forces aligned against, not the least of which are the parties themselves. They don’t want more competition, they want less, and the lower amount of work required. Partisan Republicans like their “red-locked” states, and Democrats like their “blue-locked” ones. They don’t want any reform that might take away their locked-up states, even if it theoretically means they could make better inroads in the other states.
And, when considering the impact of recent events, Trump and his minions have all but killed the GOP’s chances with the groups the demographics favor for the future, so the new ethno-nationalist GOP will fight tooth and claw against any kind of reform, because any move to a more popular (or popularly weighted) vote for President dooms the GOP’s chances of a Republican in the White House.
That’s, like, seven more than Trump.
I guess all of the assertions by anti-Hillary posters about how she’ll cut spending and abandon the military are unfounded…
(sarcasm if that wasn’t obvious to anyone)
Pretty beneficial, apparently, considering the increasingly high demand for policy relevant foreign policy and strategic/security studies research . Many political scientists served with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you spend any time around the defense and intelligence communities, you’d understand the value of the work that political scientists in relevant subfields are able to provide to the organizations they serve, whether they be full-time employees or consulting scholars.
Flag officers are at their best during the conduct of war (the means). Political scientists that orient toward strategic and security studies are able to provide policy relevant insights into the extremely complex international conditions and dynamics that precipitate war and the political outcomes of conflict (the ends). As Clauswitz famously wrote, “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Actually, the one poli-sci grad that I know who actually works in the field of study signed on with a govt. agency and did exactly that.
Haven’t seen him in a few years, but I’ll bet he has some stories to tell. Well, he would if he were allowed to anyways.
Endorsement watch: Dallas Morning News follows up its critical piece on Trump with an endorsement of Clinton:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-president.ece
Key bit - the paper hasn’t endorsed a Democrat since before World War II.
That can’t be correct. Must be the damn media bias…
