[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
Let’s use a different example. Let’s say it’s Sanders/Cruz/Bloomberg. Sanders and Bloomberg get 40% each, and Cruz gets 20%. The red states don’t count for many electoral votes because they don’t have many people. That’s why Cruz only got 20%. But, if nobody gets a majority of the electoral vote, each red state counts as much as each blue state in the house vote, despite the fact that Wyoming has 600,000 people and California has 40,000,000 people. Bloomberg and Sanders split the blue and purple states, and Cruz gets all the red states. Cruz gets “elected.”
[/quote]

The problem is our election process wasn’t created under a 2 major political party system. They had to take into account a variety of possibilities including multiple strong political parties. Nobody wants a president with only 30% of the popular vote. Especially if the other 70% really really dislike their position. Look at Europe. Most of those countries elect their government leader via collations of the representatives. Most countries in Europe don’t directly elect their president. They elect their political party with the knowledge of whom would be president if that political party has a majority. Some countries have weak presidents elected by a popular majority. All countries feared this rule by weak majority so almost every constitutional republic puts something in place to prevent it.

We decided to essentially give each state an equal vote. We did the same with the senate, it was an important principle that small states still got a say in the government. We could have done it by population in a winner take all fashion but the electoral college already handles this for the most part. We could give the representatives in congress (you did vote for this person to represent you) an equal vote but then again your feared scenario of the 3rd place guy winning the election happens anyways under the current makeup of congress. We could do a run off and maybe this is your preferred solution, but again you can end up with some extreme candidates.

I think out founders thought of a variety of election mechanisms and settled on this one even with it’s flaws. I can’t think of an election mechanism that doesn’t have at least some flaws in certain scenarios.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
How is that not a travesty of democracy?

How would it not again be a travesty of democracy if Bloomberg or Sanders won a solid plurality of both popular and electoral votes, but republican nominee and third-place finisher in the general election Ted Cruz was elected president?[/quote]

Well first of all our government isn’t a pure democracy. It’s a constitutional republic and it was specifically designed that way to prevent tyranny. The founders decided that if you couldn’t manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.

Assume for a moment that you had 5 candidates running with 3 somewhere in the middle, 1 extremely left and 1 extremely right, what if the hard core right managed 30%, the hard left managed 25% and the rest in the middle split the vote of the majority of american’s core ideology. Would you want the hard core right to rule because they got the majority vote? In that case you probably want congress to elect the more middle 3rd place finisher.

Some countries solve that issue with a run off. But then again would you want to be forced to chose between the hard right and hard left of which neither really represents your core values because they ended up being the top 2.

The system was designed to keep a weak majority from claiming the power of the executive branch and in the US the executive branch as a lot of power. It has some flaws but every system of elected government has it’s flaws.

[livinincali]

If you do decide to dump it you can get $1000 for it from the CA cash for clunkers program.

http://www.cashforclunkers.org/california-cash-for-clunkers-program/

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
I’m not sure what you mean by massively (nor am I sure why you seem to imply that it’s not important what happens when a candidate wins by a solid but not massive margin), but it would be very easy to win the popular vote in a 3-candidate race by a solid margin and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

To have congressmen choose a president is really bad. To have them choose a president in a way that a Wyomingan’s vote essentially counts 65 times as much as a Californian’s is a travesty of democracy.[/quote]

It’s happened once in the country’s history so it’s not common. Jackson won the popular vote by a significant margin but congress elected Quincy Adams. I wouldn’t call it a travesty though. It split the one party system of the Democratic-Republican party into 2 parties. Jackson won the 1828 election by a landslide. In some respects it woke the voters up. Maybe that’s exactly what we need in our current political process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Why would the city want the team?[/quote]

NFL franchises are fairly profitable and probably worth 2+ billion with a new stadium. Green Bay Packers are public so their finances are available. They made almost 30 million in profit in 2014. Not that the city should want to own the team but it certainly doesn’t appear to be a net negative.

[livinincali]

Looks like both sides have something to tout in the ratings war

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/29/media/republican-debate-ratings-donald-trump/

Fox had much lower numbers than the recent GOP debates on major networks, but Trump’s event didn’t crush the ratings either. Seems like it’s a wash there.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]If the popular vote is grossly ignored, I hope we end up with riots in the streets and a revolution. I mean that in the most literal sense possible.[/quote]

We live under a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed this way so that majorities couldn’t repress minorities. There were checks and balances such that a small state like Road Island had an equal say about government activities as the larger states at lease in some branches of government. It’s always convenient to say majority rule goes right up until your on the wrong side of the majority. It’s good that we have these checks and balances. That said it would be next impossible for someone to massively win the popular vote and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

[livinincali]

[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=flu]I’d like to get a negative mortgage rate please.[/quote]

LOL, well maybe Low 3’s .

Time to refi again LOL.[/quote]

In Japan 10 year mortgage rates are like 1% and 30 year are somewhere in the 2’s

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]Trump vs. Sanders could happen. And if it does, there’s a good chance it would be Trump vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg. I was going to say that I think that, unlike any 3rd party candidate in recent history, he’d have a decent chance of winning. Then I read the about the twelfth amendment, which includes this:

The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote…

Am I reading that wrong? If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, than it no longer matters who the people voted for? And even if the representatives from each state were conscientious enough to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, Wyoming and Alaska and Alabama added up would count the same as California, New York, and Texas added up?

Please tell me I’m reading that wrong.[/quote]

This is completely correct. If nobody gets the 270 majority of electoral votes then the house of representative delegation for each each gets 1 vote for the president. Interestingly enough the Senate elects the Vice President by the same method if this were to happen. The constitution was created with strong protections for state rights and equal treatment so it doesn’t surprise me that each state would get an equal vote in process. We really haven’t changed much about the system in the past 100+ years.

I could certainly see the possibility of this happening with a Bloomberg/Sanders/Trump election. Bloomberg and Sanders split the various blue states and Trump taking most of the Red States. Of course in that scenario Trump might actually win pluralities in some solidly blue states. Take a state like CA. Republicans usually take about 35-40% of the vote here but if democrats split equally between Sanders and Bloomberg here you could end up with Trump wining a plurality. I have no idea how something like that might split out.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Trump is at least threatening to skip the debate entirely.

If the other candidates decide to gang up on him without him there (and the moderators are likely to bring up the issue), this could hurt him very, very badly.[/quote]

I think he will indeed skip the debate. It’s questionable if it hurts him or helps him. His hard core supporters probably won’t watch the debate if he isn’t there. If it just ends up being a Trump roast than some people might be put off by the fact that nobody is talking policy and they are attacking a man who isn’t even there to defend them self. He does have the benefit of he can’t say anything stupid in a heated exchange although there’s always twitter for that.

I do know that there’s going to be a ton a polling down before and after the debate and if those numbers show he lost some support you’ll hear about it on every media outlet. If he doesn’t lose support than it will be relegated to the back page.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]That’s why we need a global power grid if solar is to really take off. Buy power from North Africa or Australia if the sun is not shining here.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how much power would be lost in a transmission line from here to Australia or North Africa. Probably 30% if not more.

[livinincali]

[quote=dumbrenter]
I will stick my neck out for this prediction: Nobody will be able to stop the coming wave of massive increase in production. The consequences of that are the ones which are hard to predict.[/quote]

You do realize that a massive increase in production will require a massive increase in energy production. Tell me where we’re building a massive increase in low cost energy production for this country? Where’s the thorium nuclear research. Where’s the permits for the nuclear power plants. I guess we better hope for a miracle in the fusion nuclear space because solar and wind probably aren’t going to be enough. Efficiency improvements can only go so far and even they can be rather expensive to implement.

[livinincali]

[quote=La Jolla Renter][quote=moneymaker]I splurged and went out and bought 26 tickets, one for every powerball number, that way I will definitely win something, a sure thing.[/quote]

That may be the best strategy yet.

It sure would suck to get all five numbers and not the powerball.[/quote]

Spending $52 to guarantee yourself $3 in CA, brilliant strategy indeed.

http://www.calottery.com/play/draw-games/powerball

[livinincali]

[quote=Parabolica]The problem with defined contributions plans as I see it is that the vast majority of working people lack the financial sophistication required to invest for their retirement. They are consigned to investment company sharks by their ignorance and the limited choices available to them in their company 401(k) choices.

Harvey, how does the average person taking your prescription save for their own retirement? Do they know about index funds? Do they get idea of changing the equity/bond ratio as they approach retirement? If they look for advisers can they avoid the sharks? I say that they cannot begin to match the returns and stability provided by professional managers of defined benefit programs. Do you see it differently?

The corporations were allowed to strip workers of defined benefit plans, moving liabilities off their books, and giving employees the ‘freedom’ to chart their own financial course. It is like handing someone a parachute and kicking them out of a plane for the first time so that they may have the ‘freedom’ of learning how to reach the ground without perishing. Those stripped of defined benefit plans are angry that their employees, government workers, have not been been rendered naked as well. Understandable, but not pretty.[/quote]

I don’t blame companies for moving the liability off there books. Are there any cities or government organizations that are in really good shape with their define benefit pension plan? The only thing that would make those government workers whole is an unlimited tax payer backstop. I think it’s virtually impossible to offer a define benefit plan that is somehow based a the last few years of salary while working and includes a variety of incentives to attempt to cheat that calculation.

If government employees want a shared defined contribution risk pool that pays out some defined benefit based on the total funds available and sound actuarial investment returns that’s fine with me. But if there’s problems within the fund let the risk pool of employees participating in such a plan bear the risks of poor performance or under contributing. That seems like a fair compromise to me. If the government employee union opts for higher payouts in retirement then contribute more during working years. If the funds are poorly invested then let those employees within the fund chose if they want to contribute more or accept lower benefits. Why should they be some special class of citizen that’s gets a tax payer funded bailout in retirement.

[livinincali]

[quote=bearishgurl]
harvey (aka pri_dk), if you think there are only TWO Piggs who grasp this concept, you need to put on your thinking cap. Let me clue you in, here. There are several more Piggs here who are currently working FT (for the gubment) under the premise that they will eventually be due a pension under a “defined benefit plan.”

I’m truly sorry for you that YOU DIDN’T CHOOSE to attempt to “qualify” for one of these eligible positions in line for a(n eventual) DB plan upon retirement. However, that decision was YOUR CHOICE! You COULD have elected to “jump thru the proper hoops” in attempt to get hired … alas but you didn’t! Thusly, you have NO RIGHT at this late date to condemn those persons who have served their qualified (faithful) service so as to earn their current pensions.[/quote]

It might be smart to have not worked under the promise of a DB plan. If it’s going to be cut in the future and based on the math of most of these plans it will probably have to be cut in some form, then you would have been better off not taking the promise of deferred compensation. The risk pool concept of a DB plan is good for most people. The problem is the benefit is not calculated as Total Amount put away plus a reasonable compounded interest rate (maybe 5%) and then distributed a rate rate similar to an annuity. It’s generally something much higher than that. That’s why there’s a problem. It’s the difference between the total amount put away plus investment returns versus the amount that was promised to be distributed.

[Author]

Posts