If I was going to modify the electoral college at all it would be to make each congressional district a separate race and vote leaving the two senate votes from each state at large. That would not make any difference in Vermont or North Dakota.( three votes blue three votes red) but in the larger states you could get splits with the cities voting one way and rural districts voting the other. That would certainly change the way campaigning was done and make the 2020 redistricting process very interesting.
Imagine a Republican in California have a chance to have his vote stand for something or a Democrat in Texas for that matter.
2017 predictions
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
http://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-ins ... -lies.html
Fascinating article. Worth reading in full.My research showed that about 40 seemingly disparate (but, according to cliodynamics, related) social indicators experienced turning points during the 1970s. Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of political turmoil. My model indicated that social instability and political violence would peak in the 2020s (see Political Instability May be a Contributor in the Coming Decade).
The presidential election which we have experienced, unfortunately, confirms this forecast. We seem to be well on track for the 2020s instability peak. And although the election is over, the deep structural forces that brought us the current political crisis have not gone away. If anything, the negative trends seem to be accelerating.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
raspberry-blower
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: 14 Mar 2009, 11:26
Tim Morgan: Looking Ahead: A Chastening for the Global Economy
Tim Morgan wrote: Altogether, what we are witnessing is a Ponzi-style financial economy heading for end-game, for four main reasons.
First, we have made growth dependent on borrowing, which was never a sustainable model.
Second, the ratio of efficiency with which we turn borrowing into growth is getting steadily worse.
Third, the demands being made on us by the deterioration of the resource scarcity equation are worsening.
Fourth, the ageing of the population is adding further strains to a system that is already nearing over-stretch.
One thing seems certain – we cannot, for much longer, carry on as we are.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
Little John
-
adam2
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10939
- Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 17:49
- Location: North Somerset, twinned with Atlantis
Another jolly prediction
"2017 will be the year in which a major western bank fails, not for the usual reasons, but due to hackers/cyber criminals stealing so much of the banks money that it fails"
Not an original thought of mine, I read it elsewhere, but a distinct possibility IMHO.
"2017 will be the year in which a major western bank fails, not for the usual reasons, but due to hackers/cyber criminals stealing so much of the banks money that it fails"
Not an original thought of mine, I read it elsewhere, but a distinct possibility IMHO.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
This is a poor argument. The popular vote is distorted by 'safe states'. We have no idea how many would-be Trump voters in California for example didn't bother to vote as they knew their vote would be irrelevant - likewise would-be Clinton supporters in Texas.woodburner wrote:You might be able to claim the first, but the election to president was merely because of a quirk in the undemocratic electoral college system. Fewer people voted for trump than voted for Clinton.
IF the election were based on the popular vote, the popular vote would be different!
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
And your argument isn't much better.clv101 wrote:This is a poor argument. The popular vote is distorted by 'safe states'. We have no idea how many would-be Trump voters in California for example didn't bother to vote as they knew their vote would be irrelevant - likewise would-be Clinton supporters in Texas.woodburner wrote:You might be able to claim the first, but the election to president was merely because of a quirk in the undemocratic electoral college system. Fewer people voted for trump than voted for Clinton.
IF the election were based on the popular vote, the popular vote would be different!
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
If you say so.clv101 wrote:My argument is that you can't go bounding around the popular vote number as if it means anything. It doesn't. Turnout was only 58%, if the result was based on popular vote you can be sure turnout would be a lot higher and the popular vote different.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
Story........“Right now, these cycles are saying that the era in which governments could amass unpayable debts with impunity is coming to an end. And the cycle in which mankind pays the price for those debts will soon begin.”
A question about the possibility of an imminent depression. Some will no doubt disagree, but it would be as well to prepare. Then again it could be one of those scams to get you on the treadmill for "free" reports which don't seem to exist, rather like the end of the rainbow.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein