Okay....now that he is President.

Your little idols have a proven track record. Jamie Dimon says thanks

 

... And there it is, the revelation of personal bias and the motive behind starting this thread. Because we don't have enough threads full of Trump-bashing.

- - - Updated - - -

The states did. A majority of Americans in a majority of states did. So solly, CA and NY

 

Psych statistics is not applicable here; the only purpose for econ-statistics is to prepare students for econometrics, which I'm not sure you've taken either.

Agreed, but that is not what I said. 100 electoral votes are not factored into when it comes to the apportionment of electoral votes, simply because each state has two senators. The first 50 states are assigned -- just because -- and the remaining 385 electoral votes is determined by a methodology based on population size, the number of representatives (n - 1) and potential representatives (denoted by n).

Or rather, using the reciprocal of the geometric mean.

Nope.

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2001/dec/c2kbr01-7.pdf

We know that one seat is given to each state regardless of population. We also know that a Priority Value assigns House Representative seats for each individual state. That priority value is calculated by taking population of the state and dividing that population by the geometric mean. Using this methodology results in a priority value for each potential representative that any could have.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/files/Priority Values 2010.pdf

For example, California (in the example you used) has the highest priority value for being the largest state in the Union. As a result, the state is awared more electorates. The larger the state, the more priority you have when determining the approtionment of electorates. Wyoming has zero priority value, so it's not awarded any electorates.

The idea that a vote from Wyoming is worth more simply because is an asinine assessment. The state's priority value is non-existant, and the their votes aren't determined by any methodology, and the number of total electoral votes fixed; they do not change. There are legitemate reasons for wanting to change the electoral college. So far, you have listed zero of those reasons.

 

I've taken all three.

Thank you for sharing what you are not sure of...but I am not concerned with what you are not sure of.

The major reason for the disparity we have been discussing is BECAUSE of the two senators for each state. I even mentioned that the less than 600,000 people of Wyoming are represented by 2 senators...while the over 39,000,000 people of California are represented by 2 senators also. That same distortion goes into the composition of the Electoral College.

You were WRONG. Grow up and learn how to acknowledge when you are wrong.

I'm still waiting for the part where you say, "Okay, I was wrong."

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

 

Even Geraldo thinks he's a nice guy. In fact almost everyone that knows him personally thinks he's a great.guy. All I've read indicates that the caricature that the left tried to create in the minds of the American people is a figment of their own imagination. I don't know him personally. So ultimately the only things I can no about him boil down to a very few obvious facts. To my mind these are as follows:

A He is pugnacious. You try to jerk him around he'll return the favor.
B.He returns loyalty for loyalty for the most part but he expects competence. He may like you and be loyal to you but if you are incompetent and do your job poorly you are gone.
C.He is tough minded, sure of himself, and values input from a variety of sources and not prone to limiting his advisors to Yes men as out last president seemed to be. This is going to be interesting because there is going to be a variety of opinions on many subjects within this cabinet.

 

He is a dangerous, narcissistic, self-absorbed jerk. But apparently since he is your dangerous, narcissistic, self-absorbed jerk...you folk have to say nice things about him.

Okay.

But my guess is there will come a day soon where you will be saying to yourselves in regret, "What have we done?"

We'll see.

 

Nice to see some people can't ever get beyond a phony caricature...And yes we will see right now things look better than they have in 30 years.

 

You have it all wrong; my concern is your lack of understanding, despite claiming to take these subjects.

Or maybe it's just the lack of quality standard from when I last took these subjects. That can be a factor as well.

Irrelevant. All you are discussing are your flimsy opinions, which I have no interest in refuting or correcting. I'm only concerned with what the facts are, which is the fact that the entire purpose of the Senate is to put a check on the popularity of the House of Representatives. This is the reason why every state has two members of the Senate.

As I've already presented the facts, there is no apportionment when it comes to the Senate. They are irrelevant when it comes to issuing the balance of power in the electorate.

Your opinions about the electoral college and its composition won't change that, no matter how hell-bent you are on misinforming yourself and others.

Wrong about what? All you've done was state your misinformed opinions. I've stated the facts with evidence to support my conclusions. The only thing you should be doing is waiting for me to tell you how inferior your opinions are.

Still waiting for an acknowledgement of your bad ideas, eh?

 

You obviously are one of those people who cannot acknowledge an error.

No problem...there are lots like you on the Internet.

I will have to settle for the satisfaction of knowing that I got you to correctly use the word "apportion."

- - - Updated - - -

I wish it were a "phony caricature", Gary. I truly do.

But as he often mentions...what you see is what you get.

He is all the things I mentioned...and I was being kind.

I suspect that will finally dawn on you at some point.

 

Unfortunately what your average leftist sees is largely divorced from reality.

 

The majority of people did not pick Clinton in 1992 - the electoral college did.

The majority of the people did not pick Hillary in 2016, nor did the electoral college..