Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Forsher]

Only two aspects of your post are remotely important to the actual conversation. Your approach is wrongheaded and/or wrong throughout though, Shof (see the spoilered sections). Note I will not reply to any commentary in the spoilered section.

And I'm supposed to care as to what you'll reply, or not reply, because? You don't get the last word, Forsher, just because you place something in the spoilered section. Welcome to reality.

Yes, Shofercia.

Apparently, though, it turns out you care more about blogging than having a conversation. Fine by me but at least be honest about what you're doing.

Remarkably data collected for the purposes of policy making tends to reflect political boundaries.

And cities, and CDPs are also areas with political boundaries. Political boundaries aren't magically limited to counties.

Maybe look up what a CDP is:

A census-designated place (CDP)[1][2][3] is a concentration of population defined by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes only. [...] The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status.[1] Thus, they may not always correspond with the local understanding of the area or community with the same name.

Of course it's not clear what you think your point here is. You may as well have posted that states are politically defined. The existence of political boundaries that aren't counties has no bearing on anything.

Here's the crux of the matter... people want to talk about a rural/urban divide but the reality of the United States is that most of its land area belongs to counties that are part of the rural economy.

All of the land in the US belongs to counties, with the exception of tribal land, which might or might not belong to counties. County land is further subdivided into cities, CDPs, and land that's sparsely populated. So if you want genuine data, you should analyze it on the basis of the smallest political unit. Furthermore, counties vary widely. California has 58 counties. Texas has 254 counties. LA County has a population that's larger than most states; Alpine County has 2,000 people... if that. This is why a county comparison is dumb, dumb, dumb.

So... there's no point whatsoever to examining countries, then? Unless said country is the smallest possible division. Gotcha.

It doesn't work like that Shof.

Now, I really don't know why you want to care about population counts... that analysis doesn't lead to a defence of the electoral college. I especially don't understand why you want to use analyses of population made without regard to larger political boundary drawing.

This presents us with four types of person (because any county with an urban area participates in the urban economy):

• John, who lives in a geographically rural area in a county that was not part of the urban economy in 2010
• Paul, who lives in a geographically rural area in a county that is part of the urban economy
• Ringo, who lives in a geographically urban area of substantial size (greater than 50k) in a county that is part of the urban economy
• George, who lives a geographically urban area in a county that is part of the urban economy

These are not arbitrary distinctions. The lived experiences and pressures acting on these people follow four distinctive patterns. And maybe you could argue that living in a rural part of a county that has a substantial urban area is different to being in one with a smaller urban presence, but all that serves to do is further break down the quality of any argument for a rural/urban divide.

It would, in other words, be interesting to see what you want but it is not necessary to advance the point being made: the rural/urban divide is bollocks and most of the USA is part of the urban economy.

Most of the people live in the urban economy. But if you take a look at the land, than most of that is part of the rural economy. To claim that most people live in an urban economy, a county by county comparison is completely useless, as you can just look at MSAs, and be able to comprehend that most people in the US live in MSAs. If you're looking at the land, then a county by county comparison is also useless, since it fails to distinguish between areas with 25,000 people per square mile, and 25 people per square mile, since counties vary widely, since different areas treats counties different, and so on. But you being you will defend a completely useless comparison pretending that it makes sense until you're completely discredited, and then you'll whine about what a mean poster I am.

Yes, Shofercia, you are complaining about using a metric that looks at the land.

And, no, Shofercia, that's your strawman argument. This was the claim:

Everywhere that isn't green? That's rural as defined by its economy. (due to having insufficient links to a largely population density, county based definition of the urban)

You can attack strawmen all you like but you'll never be attacking any position I've made. Even if you actually manage to discredit one of your strawmen.

I particularly love the way you try to use population characteristics to dismiss a position founded on the idea that the population characteristics are not relevant.

And as I think I said basically a week ago you've got options here:

• arbitrarily insist on geographic determinism (at the cost of economic determinism)
• accept that if we've got to ignore the political boundaries then you're accepting the very logic that San Lumen and others use to argue against the Electoral College

Counties don't determine an economy as much as cities. If you're going for economic determinism than cities, rather than counties, should be your focus, which was my point, which you've completely missed, yet again.

I am not going for economic determinism. Again with the strawmen.

Once again Shof... do people live in counties? Are counties are relevant and meaningful part of their lived experience? Does it matter that Jo lives in one county and Joe in another?

But why use a map to illustrate that most of the US lives in an urban economy? We know that 80% of the US is urban... and I suspect that figure is geographic and hence an understatement of the extent to which Americans live in the urban economy. Surely the figure illustrates the point sufficiently, if not quite as vividly as a map?

If you're talking about population when it comes to the urban/rural divide, then you should be talking about MSAs, not counties. Talking about counties is completely ignorant.

Yes, I am not talking about population. Good job.

Why does this paragraph exist? It's setting up the point in the next paragraph. It does not have any bearing on my earlier claims... which is the point made in the next paragraph...

Notice that I use "most of the US" in two distinct fashions here. The one meaning does not precludef the other's having a coherent meaning.

And your county by county map, which you've failed to read at least once, is idiotically irrelevant to each of them.

Funny that one of them is literally a "let's look at the land" then.

Forsher: there's no such thing as a rural/urban divide because rural areas participate in the urban economy

Shofercia: the rural/urban divide exists because the rural economy is different to the urban economy and thus requires different solutions... and hence rural and urban folk need representation

See the problem here?

Nope.

Okay, let's be pedantically clear... your statement cannot criticise my statement. If the urban and rural economy were disjoint then you might have a point. But they're not.

Insofar as you're finally talking about the point you're putting it at the end, after everyone else has gone home from the market.

NSG's always active.

Neither here nor there... it's called a metaphor. The problem is that it's at the end but it's the most important thing you should be talking about. Except... of course... you'd rather insult me in another post the length of a barn door.

Two can play at that game, though. I reiterate... have you ever actually seen a barn door? Been on a farm? Participated in a rural economy? Because some of us have.

nsofar as you're contributing to this discussion you're ignoring that the argument being put to you says that rural folk* can and do exist in an urban economy.** This would be fine if you weren't responding to that argument. But you are.

Actually, it's rather hard for rural folk to shift to the urban economy, which is the great point, which you've yet again failed to grasp.

It is?

Okay... but that's got nothing to do with the claim you're rebutting... rural folk can and do exist in an urban economy (subject to the same disclaimers made before).

n other words, can you please reformulate this paragraph in light of my critique of it?

The paragraph is fine. Your critique needs reformulating.

Given you just restated your point and ignored the position it's meant to be refuting entirely... computer says no.

Note, of course, that we could posit this breakdown:

• Georgia, who lives in a rural area but participates in an urban economy (e.g. very directly through commuting or less directly, e.g. as a property valuer for capital markets... maybe that's still direct, maybe as part of a bank branch)
• Maggie, who lives in a rural area and participates in the rural economy
• Liz, who lives in an urban area and participates in the urban economy
• Vicky, who lives in an urban area but participates in the rural economy (e.g. directly by commuting or less directly by, say, managing a slaughterhouse)

And how are counties better able to explain their roles than the cities and CDPs where they actually live? Hint: they're not.

What roles?

This isn't what I'm talking about but nor is either conception inherently superior to the other. Nor, indeed, would a John/Paul/George/Ringo model framed from the perspective of the rural economy county (rather than the urban economy county as written). Similarly, combining them all isn't necessarily better.

Again with the county... LA County - big county, big population; Mono County - big county, tiny population; San Francisco County - tiny county, big population; in what World does pretending that they can all be analyzed equally make any fucking sense?

Why do you care about the populations? It does not lead to the conclusion that the Electoral College is a good idea.

Gotta go, don't have time. Rest of your post is some dumb sauce too though.

[Shofercia]

You are still making the mistake of assuming that rural people have significantly different material concerns than urban people.

And, more to the point, that this is more important than literally every other difference between people.

Having the ability to put food on the table is kind of important.

Did you miss the 2016 Presidential Election?

Where what? One election does not a trend shape, and the swing voters of 2016 were largely the same swing voters of the last 20 years. Middle class white guys, largely without a college education. You find those both in the Rural and Urban areas.

I didn't say that it shaped a trend. I gave it as an example of an election where rural vote still played a critical role due to the EC.

In a Swing State you need all of the vote that you can get, including the rural vote. You cannot simply ignore it. As for the states you mentioned, they'll be largely irrelevant in a case where there's a direct election of the president.

Right which is my point, for the states that are actually Rural going popular vote vs. electoral college won't make much of a difference. And I hate having to repeat this, but in a popular vote you have to win every vote you can. Since the US is 80% Urban, I think trying to use Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado as some sort of Rural enclaves is rather funny, there all within 6% if the whole US. If "In a Swing State you need all of the vote that you can get, including the rural vote" applies when 75-86% of the population is Urban, then I think it applies when 80% of the population is Urban.

When was the last time, after the Gray Davis recall election, did a winning gubernatorial candidate address the issues facing rural California? Just because every vote counts, doesn't mean that you have to win every vote that you can; you just need to win 51% of the votes. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were won by less than 80,000 votes. How'd we do with the presidential elections on the popular vote:

2004: 3 million
2008: 9.5 million
2012: 5 million
2016: 2.8 million

Nowhere near 80,000. Even if we are to adjust for the population variance, it still won't come anywhere near those numbers. The truth is quite simple: Democrats lost the election, and blamed the Russia-Trump collusion. When that turned out to be a dud, it's the Electoral College's fault. It's everyone else's fault that Hillary lost, waaaa!

Obama's recovery went primarily to cities, not counties: https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... cies-were/

Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts. The resulting policy framework of Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department was, in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power. The second was the administration’s pro-monopoly policies, which crushed the rural areas that in 2016 lost voter turnout and swung to Donald Trump.

...Obama didn’t cause the financial panic, and he is only partially responsible for the bailouts, as most of them were passed before he was elected. But financial collapses, while bad for the country, are opportunities for elected leaders to reorganize our culture. Franklin Roosevelt took a frozen banking system and created the New Deal. Ronald Reagan used the sharp recession of the early 1980s to seriously damage unions. In January 2009, Obama had overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, $350 billion of no-strings-attached bailout money and enormous legal latitude. What did he do to reshape a country on its back?

...it’s no surprise that Thomas Piketty and others have detected skyrocketing inequality, that most jobs created in the past eight years have been temporary or part time, or that lifespans in white America are dropping . When Democratic leaders don’t protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry, and more of them die.

...Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But voters don’t want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with food stamps.

Urbanization occurs naturally, and Obama didn't force urbanization; but he did very little to protect Rural America, the vultures noticed, and took full advantage of it. In 2016 the voters had their revenge.

Again, the Swing voters of 2016 were largely the same swing voters of 2012 and 2008. They voted for Obama, and then they voted for Trump. Trumps victory can be chalked up to a lot of things, largely that Hillary Clinton was a very unpopular with the general electorate, and that Trump was very good at motivating the Republican base. Combined those two factors put Trump in the Presidency.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were blue in 2004. And in 2000. And in 1996. And in 1992. Those voters didn't swing for Obama. They swung for Trump.

Never said it's completely separated, but they do have separate economic interests. Also, remember that James Carville quote? "It's the economy, stupid!"

Yes economics plays a part, but it isn't the only part. if it were then you would expect Clinton to have won, the US had a historically good economy under Obama, and Clinton was his natural successor.

All of this ignores the fact that the electoral college is made up of a bunch of first past the post winner takes all elections, which is a better reason for being able to win the electoral college but loose the popular vote. It has less to do with the electoral college giving more power to certain states, and more to do with wining more states by a thin margin but loosing other states by huge margins. As an example, Hillary Clinton won California by 30%, and New York by 23%, Illinois by 17%, Trump won Florida by 2% and Texas by 12%, Pennsylvania by less than 1%, Ohio by 8%, Michigan by less than 1%, and North Carolina by 3%. Of the top 9 states by votes cast, Trump won 1 by double digits, Hillary Clinton won 3.

Hillary Clinton won California by 30% due to ballot harvesting, which might turn out to be an illegal practice. When Republicans employed that against Democrats in North Carolina, Republicans also won. It's good to harvest ballots if you're the one doing the harvesting. Of course if Putin was to do something like that in Russia, the very papers that are defending it, would be screaming bloody murder. Heck, according to the 2018 election, Orange County voted solely for Democrats. Arizona passed a law against ballot harvesting. Democrats challenged it in Court. They're losing, and I don't think that it's hard to tell which side SCOTUS will take on ballot harvesting: https://www.apnews.com/3cfd93f7859149809949bd611287154e

In the former GOP stronghold of Orange County, Republican Rep. Mimi Walters ended election night with a 6,200-vote lead. But Democrat Katie Porter swamped Walters as the vote count continued, winning 58 percent of those tallied after Election Day on her way to defeating the two-term incumbent in the 45th District.

In was a similar case in the neighboring 39th District, where Republican Young Kim was hoping to become the first Korean-American woman elected to Congress. But her healthy election-night edge over Democrat Gil Cisneros vanished when Cisneros claimed 56 percent of the later votes on his way to taking the seat long held by retiring Republican Rep. Ed Royce.

[Shofercia]

And I'm supposed to care as to what you'll reply, or not reply, because? You don't get the last word, Forsher, just because you place something in the spoilered section. Welcome to reality.

Yes, Shofercia.

Apparently, though, it turns out you care more about blogging than having a conversation. Fine by me but at least be honest about what you're doing.

Project much? You're the one demanding the last word, even to the tune of spoilering it, and then claiming that you'll totally not respond... where's the laugh track?

And cities, and CDPs are also areas with political boundaries. Political boundaries aren't magically limited to counties.

Maybe look up what a CDP is:

A census-designated place (CDP)[1][2][3] is a concentration of population defined by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes only. [...] The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status.[1] Thus, they may not always correspond with the local understanding of the area or community with the same name.

Of course it's not clear what you think your point here is. You may as well have posted that states are politically defined. The existence of political boundaries that aren't counties has no bearing on anything.

I know what a CDP is. I also know that it provides a better measure of population density, and provides a better tool to determine if an economy is urban or rural, than a county. You're never going to have a CDP gap as massive as the gap between LA County and Alpine County. And CDPs do have political boundaries. They don't have legal boundaries, because they either didn't incorporate as cities, or chose to get most of their services from the county. For instance, if one was to take the largest CDP in LA County, East Los Angeles, and conduct a simple Google search, one would know, actually know Forsher, that East LA has its own unique culture, and even tried to incorporate as a city, providing a much better urban v rural economy statistic, than LA County. Of course knowing that requires knowing what you're actually talking about.

All of the land in the US belongs to counties, with the exception of tribal land, which might or might not belong to counties. County land is further subdivided into cities, CDPs, and land that's sparsely populated. So if you want genuine data, you should analyze it on the basis of the smallest political unit. Furthermore, counties vary widely. California has 58 counties. Texas has 254 counties. LA County has a population that's larger than most states; Alpine County has 2,000 people... if that. This is why a county comparison is dumb, dumb, dumb.

So... there's no point whatsoever to examining countries, then? Unless said country is the smallest possible division. Gotcha.

You can examine states and nations, so there's a point. But using cities and CDPs to provide a more accurate statistical representation is much smarter than using sources that provide inaccurate statistical representation. In statistics, Forsher, accuracy matters. If you have a more accurate source, you go with the more accurate source.

It doesn't work like that Shof.

It does in basic statistics, and even in advanced statistics - you go with the most accurate source Forsher. It's what you're supposed to do, but clearly to you, Forsher, accuracy doesn't matter since you're trying your best to argue against using the most accurate source.

Now, I really don't know why you want to care about population counts... that analysis doesn't lead to a defence of the electoral college. I especially don't understand why you want to use analyses of population made without regard to larger political boundary drawing.

You're right, you don't understand. Quite a few people in America live in a rural economy, but their county is mostly urbanized, and hence adheres to an urban economy model. Counting these people, (who are part of a rural economy,) as part of an urban economy is erroneous, and yet, when you do a county by county comparison, that is exactly what you're doing - you're effectively misrepresenting the amount of people who are part of the rural economy in the US, and I prefer working with accurate data; if I didn't, I'd be a pollster for Hilary Clinton.

Most of the people live in the urban economy. But if you take a look at the land, than most of that is part of the rural economy. To claim that most people live in an urban economy, a county by county comparison is completely useless, as you can just look at MSAs, and be able to comprehend that most people in the US live in MSAs. If you're looking at the land, then a county by county comparison is also useless, since it fails to distinguish between areas with 25,000 people per square mile, and 25 people per square mile, since counties vary widely, since different areas treats counties different, and so on. But you being you will defend a completely useless comparison pretending that it makes sense until you're completely discredited, and then you'll whine about what a mean poster I am.

Yes, Shofercia, you are complaining about using a metric that looks at the land.

And the people who live there. When you're counting a county, you're also counting the people who actually live in that county.

And, no, Shofercia, that's your strawman argument.

Asking for accurate data is a strawman argument?

This was the claim:

Everywhere that isn't green? That's rural as defined by its economy. (due to having insufficient links to a largely population density, county based definition of the urban)

You can attack strawmen all you like but you'll never be attacking any position I've made. Even if you actually manage to discredit one of your strawmen.

I particularly love the way you try to use population characteristics to dismiss a position founded on the idea that the population characteristics are not relevant.

What links does Nye County, which is green on that map, which has a population of 2.4 people per square mile, have to Vegas, that magically make it a part of the urban economy? Links drawn by the magic school bus?

Counties don't determine an economy as much as cities. If you're going for economic determinism than cities, rather than counties, should be your focus, which was my point, which you've completely missed, yet again.

I am not going for economic determinism. Again with the strawmen.

Once again Shof... do people live in counties? Are counties are relevant and meaningful part of their lived experience? Does it matter that Jo lives in one county and Joe in another?

Once again Forsher, counties vary widely, and provide a poorer example of urban/rural divide and urban/rural economy than cities and CDPs. I think everyone else on NSG got this point by now.

If you're talking about population when it comes to the urban/rural divide, then you should be talking about MSAs, not counties. Talking about counties is completely ignorant.

Yes, I am not talking about population. Good job.

So when you're talking about the economy as it relates to population density, you're not talking about population? That's very unique of you, Forsher.

Nope.

Okay, let's be pedantically clear... your statement cannot criticise my statement. If the urban and rural economy were disjoint then you might have a point. But they're not.

My point is that rural economy and urban economy have different needs. Traffic management is not a big issue in a rural economy, whereas in an urban economy it's crucial. People tend to emigrate from rural areas, so immigration isn't an issue; people tend to immigrate into urban areas, so emigration isn't an issue. And so on...

NSG's always active.

Neither here nor there... it's called a metaphor. The problem is that it's at the end but it's the most important thing you should be talking about. Except... of course... you'd rather insult me in another post the length of a barn door.

Two can play at that game, though. I reiterate... have you ever actually seen a barn door? Been on a farm? Participated in a rural economy? Because some of us have.

Yes, I've actually seen a farm, lived on a farm, seen a barn door, etc.

Actually, it's rather hard for rural folk to shift to the urban economy, which is the great point, which you've yet again failed to grasp.

It is?

Yes, it is. If it was easy, more people would've done it. I even quoted an article, written by someone who lived in rural and urban places, explaining the issues quite well.

Okay... but that's got nothing to do with the claim you're rebutting... rural folk can and do exist in an urban economy (subject to the same disclaimers made before).

And some people without a college education can and do exist in the university town economy. However, a president's job is to care for all of the people, rather than just some of them.

The paragraph is fine. Your critique needs reformulating.

Given you just restated your point and ignored the position it's meant to be refuting entirely... computer says no.

You have a talking computer?

And how are counties better able to explain their roles than the cities and CDPs where they actually live? Hint: they're not.

What roles?

The roles in a Hollywood play... the role of the urban economy insofar as it affects the people, and the role of a rural economy, insofar as it affects the people.

Again with the county... LA County - big county, big population; Mono County - big county, tiny population; San Francisco County - tiny county, big population; in what World does pretending that they can all be analyzed equally make any fucking sense?

Why do you care about the populations? It does not lead to the conclusion that the Electoral College is a good idea.

Gotta go, don't have time. Rest of your post is some dumb sauce too though.

In that quote, I'm pointing out that it's easier to compare CDPs and cities with one another, than it is to compare counties with one another, for the reasons cited above. Once again: cities and CDPs provide a better way to measure urban v rural, and hence urban economy v rural economy, than counties do. Duh!

[Spirit of Hope]

Right which is my point, for the states that are actually Rural going popular vote vs. electoral college won't make much of a difference. And I hate having to repeat this, but in a popular vote you have to win every vote you can. Since the US is 80% Urban, I think trying to use Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado as some sort of Rural enclaves is rather funny, there all within 6% if the whole US. If "In a Swing State you need all of the vote that you can get, including the rural vote" applies when 75-86% of the population is Urban, then I think it applies when 80% of the population is Urban.

When was the last time, after the Gray Davis recall election, did a winning gubernatorial candidate address the issues facing rural California? Just because every vote counts, doesn't mean that you have to win every vote that you can; you just need to win 51% of the votes. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were won by less than 80,000 votes. How'd we do with the presidential elections on the popular vote:

2004: 3 million
2008: 9.5 million
2012: 5 million
2016: 2.8 million

Nowhere near 80,000. Even if we are to adjust for the population variance, it still won't come anywhere near those numbers. The truth is quite simple: Democrats lost the election, and blamed the Russia-Trump collusion. When that turned out to be a dud, it's the Electoral College's fault. It's everyone else's fault that Hillary lost, waaaa!

If you want to go back through my post history you can see I've been complaining about the electoral college since before the 2016 election. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It should also be noted that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did it to support Trump. That Trump did not illegally collude with the Russians should not diminish how big a deal this is, a hostile power attempted to interfere in the election.

Finally:
In 2004 there were 122 Million votes, 20% of that is 24 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 3 million. So the rural vote made a difference (3<24) . The margin of victory was 2%.
In 2008 there were 131 Million votes, 20% of that is 26 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 9.5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (9.5<26). The margin of victory was 7%.
In 2012 there were 129 Million votes, 20% of that is 25 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (5<25). The margin of victory was 3%.
In 2016 there were 136 Million votes, 20% of that is 27 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 2.8 million. So the rural vote made a difference (2.8<27). The margin of victory was 2%.

I should point out the number of votes you win by isn't important here, the margin of victory is, which is why I listed it above. Lets look what the margin of victory was in the states you listed for 2016.

In 2016 the margin of victory was the following in:
Pennsylvanian: 2.38%
Michigan: 3.59%
Wisconsin: 3.58%

So if the rural vote made a difference in those states, where the margin of victory was 2-3%, then the rural vote made a difference in the national election where the margin of victory was 2.1%, lower than any of those states margin of victory.

So either:
A) The rural vote maters in the national election, because the popular vote there was closer than in the swing states where you claim the rural vote made a difference.
B) The rural vote doesn't mater for the national election, and it doesn't mater for the swing states either.

Again, the Swing voters of 2016 were largely the same swing voters of 2012 and 2008. They voted for Obama, and then they voted for Trump. Trumps victory can be chalked up to a lot of things, largely that Hillary Clinton was a very unpopular with the general electorate, and that Trump was very good at motivating the Republican base. Combined those two factors put Trump in the Presidency.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were blue in 2004. And in 2000. And in 1996. And in 1992. Those voters didn't swing for Obama. They swung for Trump.

Good thing those weren't the only swing states? Elections are far more complicated than just "rural vote shifted trump won." I've posted about this previously in this thread, and it isn't really relevant to the electoral college discussion, so I'm dropping it ehre.

Yes economics plays a part, but it isn't the only part. if it were then you would expect Clinton to have won, the US had a historically good economy under Obama, and Clinton was his natural successor.

All of this ignores the fact that the electoral college is made up of a bunch of first past the post winner takes all elections, which is a better reason for being able to win the electoral college but loose the popular vote. It has less to do with the electoral college giving more power to certain states, and more to do with wining more states by a thin margin but loosing other states by huge margins. As an example, Hillary Clinton won California by 30%, and New York by 23%, Illinois by 17%, Trump won Florida by 2% and Texas by 12%, Pennsylvania by less than 1%, Ohio by 8%, Michigan by less than 1%, and North Carolina by 3%. Of the top 9 states by votes cast, Trump won 1 by double digits, Hillary Clinton won 3.

Hillary Clinton won California by 30% due to ballot harvesting, which might turn out to be an illegal practice. When Republicans employed that against Democrats in North Carolina, Republicans also won. It's good to harvest ballots if you're the one doing the harvesting. Of course if Putin was to do something like that in Russia, the very papers that are defending it, would be screaming bloody murder. Heck, according to the 2018 election, Orange County voted solely for Democrats. Arizona passed a law against ballot harvesting. Democrats challenged it in Court. They're losing, and I don't think that it's hard to tell which side SCOTUS will take on ballot harvesting: https://www.apnews.com/3cfd93f7859149809949bd611287154e

In the former GOP stronghold of Orange County, Republican Rep. Mimi Walters ended election night with a 6,200-vote lead. But Democrat Katie Porter swamped Walters as the vote count continued, winning 58 percent of those tallied after Election Day on her way to defeating the two-term incumbent in the 45th District.

In was a similar case in the neighboring 39th District, where Republican Young Kim was hoping to become the first Korean-American woman elected to Congress. But her healthy election-night edge over Democrat Gil Cisneros vanished when Cisneros claimed 56 percent of the later votes on his way to taking the seat long held by retiring Republican Rep. Ed Royce.

Funny California went Democrat by 3,000,000 votes in 2012 and 2008, by 1,000,000 votes in 2004, 2000 and 1996. I'm sure that is a result of a change in laws from 2018.

The comparison to North Carolina is also unfair, that was an concerted effort by an individual, paid by a campaign, to collect ballots that had not been filled out, and send them in. All the Republicans have is a complaint that by making it easier to voter, Democrats have hurt them. If you find any evidence of voter fraud, where people have been illegally filling out ballots for others, please report it. Because so far there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, there is none mentioned in your article.

As your own article points out, Democrats tend to vote later than Republicans which means that if you take a snap shot early in the election Republicans will appear to be winning. Once all ballots are in this situation might change.

All I see is Republicans complaining that Democrats made it easier to vote in a state that is heavily Democrat. If more people are able to vote, and the population is heavily Democrat, then you should expect to see more Democratic votes. No illegal effort to gather votes and no illegally filling out votes.

[Forsher]

Shof just stop making shit up about statistics... how you conclude a discipline about uncertainty is obsessed with accuracy escapes me. Oh yes everything I've ever seen you say about the field is wrong.

[The Greater Union of Man]

No, it prevents a few major cities from drowning out the voices of everyone else. And the USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, so this talk of it being undemocratic is stupid. Personally, I don't think everyone voting is a good idea, as most people are fucking stupid.

[Shofercia]

Shof just stop making shit up about statistics... how you conclude a discipline about uncertainty is obsessed with accuracy escapes me. Oh yes everything I've ever seen you say about the field is wrong.

Forsher, please stop projecting. Name one thing I made up throughout this recent debate. Just one. You can't. But instead of graciously leaving, you have to lob insults after accusing others of pedantry in the previous posts of yours. That is utterly pathetic.

No, it prevents a few major cities from drowning out the voices of everyone else. And the USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, so this talk of it being undemocratic is stupid. Personally, I don't think everyone voting is a good idea, as most people are fucking stupid.

Not a few, but yeah, essentially the cities will drown out the farming towns, that's the problem.

[Shofercia]

When was the last time, after the Gray Davis recall election, did a winning gubernatorial candidate address the issues facing rural California? Just because every vote counts, doesn't mean that you have to win every vote that you can; you just need to win 51% of the votes. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were won by less than 80,000 votes. How'd we do with the presidential elections on the popular vote:

2004: 3 million
2008: 9.5 million
2012: 5 million
2016: 2.8 million

Nowhere near 80,000. Even if we are to adjust for the population variance, it still won't come anywhere near those numbers. The truth is quite simple: Democrats lost the election, and blamed the Russia-Trump collusion. When that turned out to be a dud, it's the Electoral College's fault. It's everyone else's fault that Hillary lost, waaaa!

If you want to go back through my post history you can see I've been complaining about the electoral college since before the 2016 election. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It should also be noted that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did it to support Trump. That Trump did not illegally collude with the Russians should not diminish how big a deal this is, a hostile power attempted to interfere in the election.

How many elections did the US interfere in? Yes, Russia interfered, but I've yet to see any evidence that the result would've been different if it wasn't the case. Russian intervention was also anti-Clinton, not pro-Trump. When you select a candidate with the penchant to piss off a lot of people, that might come back to bite you in the ass. Note, I'm using the general "you" rather than accusing you of it. I said Democrats, I didn't mean you specifically. And if you want the EC gone - find a way to help the people mentioned in the Cracked article that I quoted, and I'll consider it. I wasn't a fan of the EC until I digested that article, because those people genuinely need help.

Finally:
In 2004 there were 122 Million votes, 20% of that is 24 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 3 million. So the rural vote made a difference (3<24) . The margin of victory was 2%.
In 2008 there were 131 Million votes, 20% of that is 26 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 9.5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (9.5<26). The margin of victory was 7%.
In 2012 there were 129 Million votes, 20% of that is 25 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (5<25). The margin of victory was 3%.
In 2016 there were 136 Million votes, 20% of that is 27 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 2.8 million. So the rural vote made a difference (2.8<27). The margin of victory was 2%.

I should point out the number of votes you win by isn't important here, the margin of victory is, which is why I listed it above. Lets look what the margin of victory was in the states you listed for 2016.

In 2016 the margin of victory was the following in:
Pennsylvanian: 2.38%
Michigan: 3.59%
Wisconsin: 3.58%

So if the rural vote made a difference in those states, where the margin of victory was 2-3%, then the rural vote made a difference in the national election where the margin of victory was 2.1%, lower than any of those states margin of victory.

So either:
A) The rural vote maters in the national election, because the popular vote there was closer than in the swing states where you claim the rural vote made a difference.
B) The rural vote doesn't mater for the national election, and it doesn't mater for the swing states either.

The popular vote wasn't actually closer than the vote in the swing states. The margins of victory were 0.23%, 0.72%, and 0.77% for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively. I'm not sure where you're getting your margins from, but you might want to doublecheck that source. Additionally, the rural vote in the country is at 20%; in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it averages out to 26%. So I'm a bit unsure why you're arguing that taking away 6% of the rural vote somehow empowers them, but other than getting the margins wrong, and arguing that shifting the rural vote from 26% to 20% empowers them, solid points.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were blue in 2004. And in 2000. And in 1996. And in 1992. Those voters didn't swing for Obama. They swung for Trump.

Good thing those weren't the only swing states? Elections are far more complicated than just "rural vote shifted trump won." I've posted about this previously in this thread, and it isn't really relevant to the electoral college discussion, so I'm dropping it ehre.

Those were the key states to win. If Trump won Florida, but didn't win those states, Clinton would've been president, and probably would've attempted to start WWIII over some airstrip in Syria by now.

Hillary Clinton won California by 30% due to ballot harvesting, which might turn out to be an illegal practice. When Republicans employed that against Democrats in North Carolina, Republicans also won. It's good to harvest ballots if you're the one doing the harvesting. Of course if Putin was to do something like that in Russia, the very papers that are defending it, would be screaming bloody murder. Heck, according to the 2018 election, Orange County voted solely for Democrats. Arizona passed a law against ballot harvesting. Democrats challenged it in Court. They're losing, and I don't think that it's hard to tell which side SCOTUS will take on ballot harvesting: https://www.apnews.com/3cfd93f7859149809949bd611287154e

Funny California went Democrat by 3,000,000 votes in 2012 and 2008, by 1,000,000 votes in 2004, 2000 and 1996. I'm sure that is a result of a change in laws from 2018.

The comparison to North Carolina is also unfair, that was an concerted effort by an individual, paid by a campaign, to collect ballots that had not been filled out, and send them in. All the Republicans have is a complaint that by making it easier to voter, Democrats have hurt them.

Except that's bullshit. It is incredibly easy to vote in California. All you have to do is to walk to the post office, and place your ballot, one that you received, in the mail. That is it. The post office need not be open. I know some people are handicapped, so I am perfectly fine with people going to each handicapped person's home, and collecting their ballot, provided that there's no discrimination based on party registration. But that's not what happened. Democrats got union members to constantly remind voters who are registered Democrats to vote, while deliberately ignoring Republican households. The people who were collecting ballots weren't some neutral folks; they were party operatives, or party affiliates, and considering that Democrats can get unions to "volunteer" and said "volunteership" would in no way affect their retirement benefits, not at all, it's a bit of an unfair system.

If you find any evidence of voter fraud, where people have been illegally filling out ballots for others, please report it. Because so far there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, there is none mentioned in your article.

This was the first time it was done, and Republicans, as well as ballot watchers, were woefully unprepared, although California Republican Leadership will tell you that they were totally on the ball, just don't fire them and strip them of their benefits for the crushing defeat they brought to their party... by being "totally" on the ball. Furthermore, I doubt that the ballot fraud was widespread, since again, it was a test run.

As your own article points out, Democrats tend to vote later than Republicans which means that if you take a snap shot early in the election Republicans will appear to be winning. Once all ballots are in this situation might change.

All I see is Republicans complaining that Democrats made it easier to vote in a state that is heavily Democrat. If more people are able to vote, and the population is heavily Democrat, then you should expect to see more Democratic votes. No illegal effort to gather votes and no illegally filling out votes.

I'm not saying that it was illegal. I am saying that if you're going to be collecting ballots, you shouldn't discriminate based on party affiliation as to whose ballot you're collecting. It should be like pokemon: gotta catch 'em all. Furthermore, it's asininely easy to vote in California.

[Forsher]

Shof the post you just quoted literally names "one thing".

[San Lumen]

No, it prevents a few major cities from drowning out the voices of everyone else. And the USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, so this talk of it being undemocratic is stupid. Personally, I don't think everyone voting is a good idea, as most people are fucking stupid.

That is not why the electoral college was created!!!!!

In 1789 there were no large urban centers like we have today . enough already with the revisionist history. It was created as a check on the people and the create a balance between free and slaves states. To say anything else is revisionist history.

[San Lumen]

If you want to go back through my post history you can see I've been complaining about the electoral college since before the 2016 election. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It should also be noted that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did it to support Trump. That Trump did not illegally collude with the Russians should not diminish how big a deal this is, a hostile power attempted to interfere in the election.

How many elections did the US interfere in? Yes, Russia interfered, but I've yet to see any evidence that the result would've been different if it wasn't the case. Russian intervention was also anti-Clinton, not pro-Trump. When you select a candidate with the penchant to piss off a lot of people, that might come back to bite you in the ass. Note, I'm using the general "you" rather than accusing you of it. I said Democrats, I didn't mean you specifically. And if you want the EC gone - find a way to help the people mentioned in the Cracked article that I quoted, and I'll consider it. I wasn't a fan of the EC until I digested that article, because those people genuinely need help.

Finally:
In 2004 there were 122 Million votes, 20% of that is 24 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 3 million. So the rural vote made a difference (3<24) . The margin of victory was 2%.
In 2008 there were 131 Million votes, 20% of that is 26 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 9.5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (9.5<26). The margin of victory was 7%.
In 2012 there were 129 Million votes, 20% of that is 25 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (5<25). The margin of victory was 3%.
In 2016 there were 136 Million votes, 20% of that is 27 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 2.8 million. So the rural vote made a difference (2.8<27). The margin of victory was 2%.

I should point out the number of votes you win by isn't important here, the margin of victory is, which is why I listed it above. Lets look what the margin of victory was in the states you listed for 2016.

In 2016 the margin of victory was the following in:
Pennsylvanian: 2.38%
Michigan: 3.59%
Wisconsin: 3.58%

So if the rural vote made a difference in those states, where the margin of victory was 2-3%, then the rural vote made a difference in the national election where the margin of victory was 2.1%, lower than any of those states margin of victory.

So either:
A) The rural vote maters in the national election, because the popular vote there was closer than in the swing states where you claim the rural vote made a difference.
B) The rural vote doesn't mater for the national election, and it doesn't mater for the swing states either.

The popular vote wasn't actually closer than the vote in the swing states. The margins of victory were 0.23%, 0.72%, and 0.77% for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively. I'm not sure where you're getting your margins from, but you might want to doublecheck that source. Additionally, the rural vote in the country is at 20%; in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it averages out to 26%. So I'm a bit unsure why you're arguing that taking away 6% of the rural vote somehow empowers them, but other than getting the margins wrong, and arguing that shifting the rural vote from 26% to 20% empowers them, solid points.

Good thing those weren't the only swing states? Elections are far more complicated than just "rural vote shifted trump won." I've posted about this previously in this thread, and it isn't really relevant to the electoral college discussion, so I'm dropping it ehre.

Those were the key states to win. If Trump won Florida, but didn't win those states, Clinton would've been president, and probably would've attempted to start WWIII over some airstrip in Syria by now.

Funny California went Democrat by 3,000,000 votes in 2012 and 2008, by 1,000,000 votes in 2004, 2000 and 1996. I'm sure that is a result of a change in laws from 2018.

The comparison to North Carolina is also unfair, that was an concerted effort by an individual, paid by a campaign, to collect ballots that had not been filled out, and send them in. All the Republicans have is a complaint that by making it easier to voter, Democrats have hurt them.

Except that's bullshit. It is incredibly easy to vote in California. All you have to do is to walk to the post office, and place your ballot, one that you received, in the mail. That is it. The post office need not be open. I know some people are handicapped, so I am perfectly fine with people going to each handicapped person's home, and collecting their ballot, provided that there's no discrimination based on party registration. But that's not what happened. Democrats got union members to constantly remind voters who are registered Democrats to vote, while deliberately ignoring Republican households. The people who were collecting ballots weren't some neutral folks; they were party operatives, or party affiliates, and considering that Democrats can get unions to "volunteer" and said "volunteership" would in no way affect their retirement benefits, not at all, it's a bit of an unfair system.

If you find any evidence of voter fraud, where people have been illegally filling out ballots for others, please report it. Because so far there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, there is none mentioned in your article.

This was the first time it was done, and Republicans, as well as ballot watchers, were woefully unprepared, although California Republican Leadership will tell you that they were totally on the ball, just don't fire them and strip them of their benefits for the crushing defeat they brought to their party... by being "totally" on the ball. Furthermore, I doubt that the ballot fraud was widespread, since again, it was a test run.

As your own article points out, Democrats tend to vote later than Republicans which means that if you take a snap shot early in the election Republicans will appear to be winning. Once all ballots are in this situation might change.

All I see is Republicans complaining that Democrats made it easier to vote in a state that is heavily Democrat. If more people are able to vote, and the population is heavily Democrat, then you should expect to see more Democratic votes. No illegal effort to gather votes and no illegally filling out votes.

I'm not saying that it was illegal. I am saying that if you're going to be collecting ballots, you shouldn't discriminate based on party affiliation as to whose ballot you're collecting. It should be like pokemon: gotta catch 'em all. Furthermore, it's asininely easy to vote in California.

A party or group trying to get its voters out is fraud? Why is making it easy to vote a bad thing? there is no mass conspiracy to commit fraud. Elections officials in every state take their jobs seriously. Even in California. if there was mass fraud going on someone would say something. please stop with this nonsense.

According to your logic Democrats getting their voters out in the urban centers Connecticut is fraud too right because the outgoing governor was so unpopular there was no way he could have been succeeded by a member of his party. Democrats in the state have very efficient turnout machine

[Forsher]

Project much? You're the one demanding the last word, even to the tune of spoilering it, and then claiming that you'll totally not respond... where's the laugh track?

Given your habit of responding to every fucking thing with three thousand completely idiotic sentences, it is necessary to cut out what is not relevant to the material conversation. You, of course, translate this to "a need for the last word" because... well, who knows? I suspect the folk wisdom "he doth protest too much" explains it.

Which is also why this is not going to get a follow up response should you choose to reply to it. The topic is... on the planet Mars compared to this train of thought.

I will be culling your paragraphs extensively here.

provides a better tool to determine if an economy is urban or rural, than a county.

Yes, do elaborate. Please tell us how counties are best defined as being part of an urban economy based on looking at CDPs instead of counties.

Also explain how economies are suddenly urban or rural. As was pointed out the terms are not mutually exclusive.

And CDPs do have political boundaries. They don't have legal boundaries, because they either didn't incorporate as cities, or chose to get most of their services from the county.

Given that I specifically went and made sure legal boundaries were included in that quote maybe that's a clue... in the conversation we're having... these are the same thing. Since they are the same thing...

Of course knowing that requires knowing what you're actually talking about.

It would be, some claim, better that the US was several different countries instead of one. You can see this claim being made in this very thread. Does the existence of this normative statement invalidate the positive assessment that people in the United States live in a country with urban and rural economies?

The answer, to be clear, is no. But your response to my posts needs the answer to be yes.

Do people, or do they not, live in counties, Shof? Does it matter that they live in counties? Is it important that you live in this county and they live in that county?

You can examine states and nations, so there's a point. But using cities and CDPs to provide a more accurate statistical representation is much smarter than using sources that provide inaccurate statistical representation. In statistics, Forsher, accuracy matters. If you have a more accurate source, you go with the more accurate source.

So there's a point?

And, no, Shof, that's not how statistics works. In statistics, one is concerned pretty much entirely with validity. A more "accurate source" has to be analysed in exactly the same fashion as a less accurate source.

In fact, the whole idea of samples being more or less accurate is usually going to have no meaning in conventional (applied) statistics since our inferences are about unknown (and usually unknowable) parameters in almost all situations. I mean, fuck, this is like the third lesson in Stats 101. x bar versus mu.

It is, of course, usually possible to tell if data is garbage. Which is the case with CDP data if what we're trying to talk about is counties. And vice versa. Remember what you're trying to do Shof... you're trying to show that looking at counties cannot demonstrate that most of America participates in a urban economy and therefore the rural/urban divide is a problematic notion.

Quite a few people in America live in a rural economy, but their county is mostly urbanized, and hence adheres to an urban economy model.

Does this matter?

Counting these people, (who are part of a rural economy,) as part of an urban economy is erroneous, and yet, when you do a county by county comparison, that is exactly what you're doing

No Shof, this is precisely what you claim I'm doing and precisely what I have repeatedly pointed out is not what I'm doing. Stop lying.

you're effectively misrepresenting the amount of people who are part of the rural economy in the US

Remember when I said:

It does not, of course, allow us to count up all the populations in all the urban economy counties to tell us how many Americans are in the urban economy... but I'm not doing that. It would be interesting to know if this figure is the same as the 80/20 urban/rural stat I've seen quoted before, but I don't know that and I'm not trying to talk about it.

Of course not because your entire fucking rebuttal is premised on the fact I am trying to count up all the populations. Which I am explicitly not doing.

And the people who live there. When you're counting a county, you're also counting the people who actually live in that county.

So... when I count people, I'm also counting atoms, hair follicles and all sorts of other things? Of course not.

Asking for accurate data is a strawman argument?

As has been pointed out... as should not require pointing out... relative to the claim made the data you want is GIGO.

What links does Nye County, which is green on that map, which has a population of 2.4 people per square mile, have to Vegas, that magically make it a part of the urban economy? Links drawn by the magic school bus?

I don't know. I didn't make the map.

What we do know, given Nye County is green, is that everyone who lives in that county lives in a political area that is part of the urban economy. Even if they are geographically rural dwellers they still live in Nye County. And it still matters that they live in Nye County.

Consequently when you want to tell me that such a person is divided from the urban I can come along and say, "Well, look at this map. They live in a county which is part of the urban economy. Their political reality and so their political calculus is necessarily informed by being part of a politically urban economy. How is a rural/urban divide thesis tenable given this? Given that their reality is not wholly rural?"

And to this you might say, "Well, it's more important that they don't personally participate in the urban economy."

And to this I might say, "Does it matter that they live in Nye County instead of one of the white counties? Is it irrelevant that Nye County is part of an urban economy?"

To which you've said nothing. Which is shocking because this is the actual conversation. Not your bullshit characterisation of statistics. Not your whiny defence of blogging. Not analogies about soccer that you don't understand properly. This and only this.

Once again Forsher, counties vary widely, and provide a poorer example of urban/rural divide and urban/rural economy than cities and CDPs. I think everyone else on NSG got this point by now

.

Yes, Shof, I am literally using counties to critique the concept of a urban/rural divide. That you seem to be using my point as a criticism of what I'm saying is... odd.

And I have already pointed out that the rural and urban economies are not disjoint subsets:

It's almost as if it's a complete nonsense and economically illiterate to suggest that the rural economy has nothing to do with the country as a whole. Who do you think buys their carrots... other farmers?

But we're not talking about this. I'm trying to help you grasp an alternative critique of the rural/urban divide thesis. I mention this point because you seem to have become quite attached to this rural/urban economy terminology and it's not clear if you understand they're not mutually exclusive. (Although in some ways it would be better to say that they're not independent.)

So when you're talking about the economy as it relates to population density, you're not talking about population? That's very unique of you, Forsher.

Shockingly it is possible to discuss what is being measured independently of how we know what it is. When we talk about rabbits we're not usually going to be discussing the biological and ecological species concepts.

My point is that rural economy and urban economy have different needs. Traffic management is not a big issue in a rural economy, whereas in an urban economy it's crucial. People tend to emigrate from rural areas, so immigration isn't an issue; people tend to immigrate into urban areas, so emigration isn't an issue. And so on...

People don't emigrate from cities? What the actual fuck Shof?

But you're missing the point... you want your point, to be able to contest what I'm saying. It doesn't. It cannot. All it does is offer another, a different, way of looking at the problem.

Yes, it is. If it was easy, more people would've done it. I even quoted an article, written by someone who lived in rural and urban places, explaining the issues quite well.

More people would've done it? You do realise the US didn't always have an 80/20 urban/rural split, right?

It is not difficult to work in a supermarket in a urban environ. Nor is it overly difficult to work on a farm in the sense it's not really "high skilled" work. It is a bit more difficult... a lot more... to go from working in a supermarket to running a farm. And, of course, being an actuary is harder than working on a farm or supermarket and different to running a farm. In some sense, the issue is really just one of getting to the job... which is one way of looking at urbanisation.

And some people without a college education can and do exist in the university town economy. However, a president's job is to care for all of the people, rather than just some of them.

You do realise this is the rural/urban divide thesis, right? You know the proposition I'm criticising??

The roles in a Hollywood play... the role of the urban economy insofar as it affects the people, and the role of a rural economy, insofar as it affects the people.

Okay.

So what are you saying? Is your specification something like:

role = f( CDP, specific settlement)

That is, specific settlement is whether someone lives in rural Nye County, Las Vegas, New York City or Superior. CDP is some means of measuring urban and rural.

Or are you saying something more like:

role = f( CDP)

That is, CDP is a specific geo-political location which obviously includes the rural/urban character still.

Because what I'm saying is that the rural/urban thesis works something like this:

role (or, at least, voting behaviour) = f( geography)

i.e. geographic determinism. And I'm contrasting that with:

role (or, at least, voting behaviour) = f( geography, political economy)

i.e. that living in a county that's part of the rural/urban economy is important and matters. This being a question you've dodged.

In that quote, I'm pointing out that it's easier to compare CDPs and cities with one another, than it is to compare counties with one another, for the reasons cited above. Once again: cities and CDPs provide a better way to measure urban v rural, and hence urban economy v rural economy, than counties do. Duh!

That counties are divergent does not mean they are not comparable and does not mean it is impossible to trace patterns in the political calculus they imply.

[Kowani]

…This may be the least productive thread in NSG history.

[Forsher]

…This may be the least productive thread in NSG history.

I've seen a bunch of your posts in this thread and I don't actually know where you stand...

[Kowani]

…This may be the least productive thread in NSG history.

I've seen a bunch of your posts in this thread and I don't actually know where you stand...

Abolish the EC, proportional representation.

[Telconi]

No, it prevents a few major cities from drowning out the voices of everyone else. And the USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, so this talk of it being undemocratic is stupid. Personally, I don't think everyone voting is a good idea, as most people are fucking stupid.

That is not why the electoral college was created!!!!!

In 1789 there were no large urban centers like we have today . enough already with the revisionist history. It was created as a check on the people and the create a balance between free and slaves states. To say anything else is revisionist history.

He didn't say that's why it was created.

[Forsher]

I've seen a bunch of your posts in this thread and I don't actually know where you stand...

Abolish the EC, proportional representation.

Wait, PR for Congress or a PR-analogue for POTUS?

[Kowani]

Abolish the EC, proportional representation.

Wait, PR for Congress or a PR-analogue for POTUS?

Congress.

[Telconi]

Abolish the EC, proportional representation.

Wait, PR for Congress or a PR-analogue for POTUS?

How would you proportionally represent with POTUS?

[Kowani]

Wait, PR for Congress or a PR-analogue for POTUS?

How would you proportionally represent with POTUS?

You rip off Frankenstein?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

How would you proportionally represent with POTUS?

You rip off Frankenstein?

Or perhaps just merge the executive and legislative branches. The President is the head of the party with the most seats in Congress. Although, Congress would then need to be made unicameral, so...

[Kowani]

You rip off Frankenstein?

Or perhaps just merge the executive and legislative branches. The President is the head of the party with the most seats in Congress. Although, Congress would then need to be made unicameral, so...

You know, the system in our RP Parliament is that, at least in de facto. It doesn’t work.

[Forsher]

Wait, PR for Congress or a PR-analogue for POTUS?

How would you proportionally represent with POTUS?

I consider methods like Instant Runoff (which I think I called STV earlier in the thread) to be PR-analogues. That is, they have overtures to the logic of proportionality... getting rid of wasted vote primarily*... even though they aren't proportional or the situation precludes proportionality.

So, yes, not PR. Whether or not PR-analogue is the best description of what I mean is a different, if important, question.

*A national preoccupation here.

You rip off Frankenstein?

Or perhaps just merge the executive and legislative branches. The President is the head of the party with the most seats in Congress. Although, Congress would then need to be made unicameral, so...

Why would that be the case?

You can do what happens in the UK now where the PM comes from just the lower house based on lower house dynamics. You can calculate "most" across both houses. You could work purely based on the lower house.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

How would you proportionally represent with POTUS?

I consider methods like Instant Runoff (which I think I called STV earlier in the thread) to be PR-analogues. That is, they have overtures to the logic of proportionality... getting rid of wasted vote primarily*... even though they aren't proportional or the situation precludes proportionality.

So, yes, not PR. Whether or not PR-analogue is the best description of what I mean is a different, if important, question.

*A national preoccupation here.

Or perhaps just merge the executive and legislative branches. The President is the head of the party with the most seats in Congress. Although, Congress would then need to be made unicameral, so...

Why would that be the case?

You can do what happens in the UK now where the PM comes from just the lower house based on lower house dynamics. You can calculate "most" across both houses. You could work purely based on the lower house.

The problem being that while the United States certainly used to have an upper and lower house, the upper house being the Senate and the lower house being the House of Representatives, ever since Senators became directly elected the United States has lacked a "true" upper house/lower house dynamic. At least from my view of my country's affairs.

[Spirit of Hope]

If you want to go back through my post history you can see I've been complaining about the electoral college since before the 2016 election. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It should also be noted that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did it to support Trump. That Trump did not illegally collude with the Russians should not diminish how big a deal this is, a hostile power attempted to interfere in the election.

How many elections did the US interfere in? Yes, Russia interfered, but I've yet to see any evidence that the result would've been different if it wasn't the case. Russian intervention was also anti-Clinton, not pro-Trump. When you select a candidate with the penchant to piss off a lot of people, that might come back to bite you in the ass. Note, I'm using the general "you" rather than accusing you of it. I said Democrats, I didn't mean you specifically. And if you want the EC gone - find a way to help the people mentioned in the Cracked article that I quoted, and I'll consider it. I wasn't a fan of the EC until I digested that article, because those people genuinely need help.

So because we did something bad it is ok for others to do something bad?

I'm not particularly happy with the US's track record on election interference either.

I will point out that every region has a House Representative, and when we aren't gerrymandering the shit out of the representative districts the House is pretty good at representing the people. If 20% of the population is upset they will probably swing around 20% of House seats, and considering control of the House is often determined by less than 20% of the seats I would say that is a good way of getting your voice heard.

Second would be to point out that in a popular vote system 20% of the population would be hard to ignore when popular vote victories are by less than 10%.

Third I would point out that Senators are the electoral college taken up to 11, each state only gets two votes there, which means swing states in the electoral college are even more powerful in the senate where they are equal with the biggest states. And so are the truly Rural states.

So the argument that the rural population is ignored and disenfranchised is a myth now, and they would only get more represented by a popular vote because all of their voices would be heard, not just the voices in the swing states.

Edit to add, I would also point out that in 2012 a majority of Democrats and Republicans we're against the Electoral College. Including President Trump. But after the 2016 election Republicans were suddenly in favor of it and Democrats were much more against it.

Finally:
In 2004 there were 122 Million votes, 20% of that is 24 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 3 million. So the rural vote made a difference (3<24) . The margin of victory was 2%.
In 2008 there were 131 Million votes, 20% of that is 26 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 9.5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (9.5<26). The margin of victory was 7%.
In 2012 there were 129 Million votes, 20% of that is 25 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 5 million. So the rural vote made a difference (5<25). The margin of victory was 3%.
In 2016 there were 136 Million votes, 20% of that is 27 Million (gestimate at the number of rural votes). The popular vote was won by 2.8 million. So the rural vote made a difference (2.8<27). The margin of victory was 2%.

I should point out the number of votes you win by isn't important here, the margin of victory is, which is why I listed it above. Lets look what the margin of victory was in the states you listed for 2016.

In 2016 the margin of victory was the following in:
Pennsylvanian: 2.38%
Michigan: 3.59%
Wisconsin: 3.58%

So if the rural vote made a difference in those states, where the margin of victory was 2-3%, then the rural vote made a difference in the national election where the margin of victory was 2.1%, lower than any of those states margin of victory.

So either:
A) The rural vote maters in the national election, because the popular vote there was closer than in the swing states where you claim the rural vote made a difference.
B) The rural vote doesn't mater for the national election, and it doesn't mater for the swing states either.

The popular vote wasn't actually closer than the vote in the swing states. The margins of victory were 0.23%, 0.72%, and 0.77% for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively. I'm not sure where you're getting your margins from, but you might want to doublecheck that source. Additionally, the rural vote in the country is at 20%; in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it averages out to 26%. So I'm a bit unsure why you're arguing that taking away 6% of the rural vote somehow empowers them, but other than getting the margins wrong, and arguing that shifting the rural vote from 26% to 20% empowers them, solid points.

You are correct I misread the margin of victory percentage. My main point still stands however, in all of the elections going back over 20 years the margin of victory was smaller than the rural population. Generally by an order of magnitude.

So you are arguing 20% of the voting population will be ignored, when elections are determined by 2% to 7% of the vote. I don't think that math adds up.

Funny California went Democrat by 3,000,000 votes in 2012 and 2008, by 1,000,000 votes in 2004, 2000 and 1996. I'm sure that is a result of a change in laws from 2018.

The comparison to North Carolina is also unfair, that was an concerted effort by an individual, paid by a campaign, to collect ballots that had not been filled out, and send them in. All the Republicans have is a complaint that by making it easier to voter, Democrats have hurt them.

Except that's bullshit. It is incredibly easy to vote in California. All you have to do is to walk to the post office, and place your ballot, one that you received, in the mail. That is it. The post office need not be open. I know some people are handicapped, so I am perfectly fine with people going to each handicapped person's home, and collecting their ballot, provided that there's no discrimination based on party registration. But that's not what happened. Democrats got union members to constantly remind voters who are registered Democrats to vote, while deliberately ignoring Republican households. The people who were collecting ballots weren't some neutral folks; they were party operatives, or party affiliates, and considering that Democrats can get unions to "volunteer" and said "volunteership" would in no way affect their retirement benefits, not at all, it's a bit of an unfair system.

Republicans can get people to volunteer to collect ballots as well, and do you have a source that Californian Democrats are coercing anyone to volunteer or lose retirement benefits? I would love to see it, otherwise I will assume you just made an argument in bad faith.

If you find any evidence of voter fraud, where people have been illegally filling out ballots for others, please report it. Because so far there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, there is none mentioned in your article.

This was the first time it was done, and Republicans, as well as ballot watchers, were woefully unprepared, although California Republican Leadership will tell you that they were totally on the ball, just don't fire them and strip them of their benefits for the crushing defeat they brought to their party... by being "totally" on the ball. Furthermore, I doubt that the ballot fraud was widespread, since again, it was a test run.

So there was no evidence of voter fraud.

As your own article points out, Democrats tend to vote later than Republicans which means that if you take a snap shot early in the election Republicans will appear to be winning. Once all ballots are in this situation might change.

All I see is Republicans complaining that Democrats made it easier to vote in a state that is heavily Democrat. If more people are able to vote, and the population is heavily Democrat, then you should expect to see more Democratic votes. No illegal effort to gather votes and no illegally filling out votes.

I'm not saying that it was illegal. I am saying that if you're going to be collecting ballots, you shouldn't discriminate based on party affiliation as to whose ballot you're collecting. It should be like pokemon: gotta catch 'em all. Furthermore, it's asininely easy to vote in California.

Says a party only picking ups its ballots after the state made it easier for everyone to vote is unfair.
Says the electoral college, which disenfranchises millions each election, is totally fair.

The state of California made it easier to vote, the state did not go around collecting only Democratic votes. The Democratic party organized that. The Republican party could do something similar if they wanted to, but they failed to do that. Complaining it is unfair that the Democrats didn't do work for the Republicans just strikes me as odd, because it isn't like the Republicans are going around doing work that will help bring in Democratic votes.