You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

well for the AI it worked better than for the humans who wiped out all plant life in an effort to kill machines.

and even then the AI did not resort to genocide and instead helped the humans survive.

 

Many states with only 3-4 Electoral College seats have more than 3-4 counties.

You could go with a %-based EC representation, but states with lower EC seats will again have a difficult question of how to parse those seats.

If you've got 45% for A, 45.01% for B, and 9.99% for C, who gets how many seats if you've got 3?

The "obvious" answer is likely 1 for A, 2 for B, and 0 for C, but each State might see it differently. Maybe they'd go 1 for A, 1 for B and 1 for C (or maybe just no directive given to the third), since no party got more than 50% (so they rounded down and gave the third to a spoiler).

Maine has a slightly easier time with having 4 EC votes but...

Again, I'm not saying this isn't a bad option, it just also has questions that'd need sorting, and going by EC districts or something feels like it would make more sense... but that might just be me.

I do think that a District system would essentially require that each district have as close to the same voter population (at least per EC seat) as possible, again to keep any given group within the State from having significantly more say than others within the same State.

There is of course also the concern of people going into other regions to try and vote outside of their districts (say they've got a 70-30 lead in their district but other districts are 50-50), some might try and influence that by going to vote where they might have "more impact" I.E. engage in voter fraud.

I dunno, maybe my system is too complicated as well, but it does feel like it'd be an improvement.


On a different note:

You raised some very good points with this.

The problem as I see it is that by effectively trying to overturn the election in favor of Clinton, she's throwing out her own credibility. While people will undoubtedly flock behind the recount effort, I wouldn't be surprised if this hurts Jill's political career outside of that effort (assuming she's still planning on trying to have one).

 

she was the Green Party candidate. She never had any credibility.

 

how about STV? single transferible vote.

C does not make the threshold ( what % that should be? no idea let's say 30% ) , A and B get 1 each, then the C voter's second choice get them ( as they presumably would if C had not run in the first place) so 9,99% is not lost but their second choice ( either A or B) gets their vote instead of the dropped candidate (C) largest candidate after redistribution gets second EC vote.

 

Don't confuse "viability" with "credibility." Though of course I can understand if you personally never held her or anyone in the Green Party as "credible" it's not the same thing as her never having any with others.

 

jill's run was more symbolic than anything else. anyone that truly thought she could win had their head so far up their ass i don't even know where to start.

 

If you're suggesting that your average Green Party voter gives two figs about 'credibility' or 'reason' or 'honor' or any other positive adjective you can think of, I would disagree. For anyone to be so myopic about the issues facing the country that they would base their vote on environmental concerns, then they simply have no room to discern based on character and such. Iow they'll take whoever they can get. And anyone not in the Green Party already views them and their candidates as a joke (at best) and as a spoiler to the democratic process (at worst).

So I wouldn't worry too much about her losing credibility as apparently she isn't too worried about it either.

 

Ragic are you trying to make a joke or are you just being a terrible human being in regards to other human beings right now?

I ask because you are bad at jokes.

 

environmentalists are a bad joke who love the planet more than their fellow human beings and who I suspect believe deep down that animals can talk but choose not to because humans are so evil.

 

yeah I mean look at yourself and then look at these:


also you seem to forget that we humans NEED THIS PLANET TO LIVE


bonus foxes dragging waterfowl

bad trolling. try again.

 

liked for colourful pics

 

at the time of this quoting no like has been given.


Edit: took you long enough.

 

Fidel Castro, if he was still cognizant of world events, probably died out of sadness because Trump's yuge victory is a sign of bigly success for MuriKa.

Also, Cuban Americans have been celebrating like it was 1999.

‘It brought tears to my eyes’: Miami’s Cuban Americans celebrate Fidel Castro’s death

Luis Enrique Fernandez, 19, a sophomore at the University of Florida who came to the United States when he was 13, said that he had returned to his home country a few times since leaving and that conditions seemed to have improved slightly. He said he was hopeful even more would change with Castro’s death.

“My family and I don’t really wish death to come to anyone, but we’re feeling kind of liberated right now,” Fernandez said. “It’s the end of an era, and the person who was behind so much pain and suffering is gone now.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c1c36c-b40f-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

 

DJ it is a joke. why you got to make everything about politics

 

such lies



sorry i was texting at the same time and forgot

 

One of the most concerning parts about trump to me, probably the most concerning, is his disregard for climate change. We are very close to running out of time, and need to act more than we are.

 

If this is an important topic to you, then yeah, you should be concerned. Truth is, regardless of who the president of the USA is, climate change, if you believe what is being said, isnt going to change at all. That would require a world-wide agreement. And it would cost an unimaginable amount of money to implement and in lost revenue across many (most) industries. The country and all the people would be making less money in a world where things are now more expensive.

Saying climate change is important is one thing, increasing recycling is another. But Jill Whoever showed you just how important that subject is to Americans in her attempt at a presidency run. It's not just repubs, its everyone. If you're naive enough to believe that the demo rhetoric about climate change was anything other than a vote-grab, then well... yeah, nothing I say here is going to stick.

Lets be realistic. If the world is doomed from climate change, then the world is doomed.

 

I know it will be virtually impossible to coordinate this global effort, but the fact is we don't have a choice. Its this or bust.

 

Yeah, I hear ya. From your perspetive, I'd be worried too.

I do not believe it is as bad as you do. I think the earth is more powerful than its humans but humans are smart enough to ensure their own survivability. What does this mean? It means, however long it takes to ruin the Earth, or make it uninhabitable, we'll have devised a way to continue by that time. At least for 1st world countries. Right now we are just talking about the IDEA of correcting our alleged anti-happy-climate ways. We have not even discussed the costs and collateral damage. And once we do that we have not even discussed the impossibility of going up against the money and power that would squash this movement like a bug without so much as a blinks worth of energy. And if somehow, you could get passed all that, now you'll have to get the world to play nice, instead of just pretend they are playing along and really keeping a competitive edge by utilizing the now-outlawed fossil fuels etc for a competitive edge. How would you enforce this? There is no real power without an army. You going to arm the UN? A new world order? It just keeps going and ends up back where we started. It's just best to keep this a warm fuzzy dream-like unachievable thing that we can picket about and get people like Jill Whoever to run for and lobby presidents for stupid legislation that doesn't effect anything etc etc.

Climate change is not real, because there is no realistic end where-in climate change is the priority. So we can blame Trump for it, but if we are going to put on our big boi panties, reality says: lol.

 

Thinking of fossil fuels as a major competitive edge may not be true. Fossil fuels have a finite supply and are subject to geopolitical tensions, while renewable energy is limitless and located within country borders.

I think it's telling that China is investing heavily in renewable energy sources. This is a country that is ravenous for power, and they're decreasing the percentage they get from coal plants.

A government that denies or downplays global warming is being both irresponsible and illogical. Phasing out fossil fuels is the solution. Why wait until the world is ruined?