Quote from: Poker Player on November 02, 2024, 04:11:07 PM

Quote from: paxmao on November 02, 2024, 12:15:48 PM

Come on! It should be an amount that makes a difference, else what is the fun ... for us I mean Grin

I think you guys have been long enough into crypto to have the odd bitcoin here and there. Anything less than 1 bitcoin is just not enough for the show Grin

I understand the joke but I prefer to invest the amounts that make the difference, not bet them.

Quote from: paxmao on November 02, 2024, 12:15:48 PM

Fun apart, the fact is that presidency is not even a question of a few states, the electoral system in the US is so funny...

There is no perfect electoral system.

Quote from: paxmao on November 02, 2024, 12:15:48 PM

It is to note that it makes the system more fragile to gerrymandering, ballot stuffing and all other dirty tricks. An electoral system that is proportional to number of votes, even something like Nevada that is somewhat proportional, would better reflect the true opinion of the population, but also would make it much more difficult to rig because it would need a massively spread fraud.

The problem with proportional electoral systems, those that come closest to each person's vote being equal in electoral weight to one vote, is that the great majority of people live in urban areas and for them the problems of rural areas are not a priority. If you equalize the weight of the votes, the electoral result will reflect what the urbanites want, leaving the people of rural areas marginalized. In addition, you also further incentivize people from rural areas to move to cities, if all policy is focused on them.

Quote from: paxmao on November 02, 2024, 12:15:48 PM

With the current system, fraud in a few counties could be enough.

I'm going to tell Trump to quote you if he loses, lol.

I got the feeling he does not need me.

On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".

One thing is not having a "perfect system" and another is to have a system in which less people decide over more people, which is pretty much the opposite to the definition of democracy - following your argument, the people not living in cities have the right to impose their conditions on the people living in cities despite being in a minority, thus ignoring the interests of the majority.

We are not talking a small thing here, we are talking 50 million people being made equal to zero in the Senate on grounds of equal weight of States - on a House that can basically only oppose and delay.

My take on this is that electoral votes in the state should be given following some degree of proportionality (e.g. D'Hont or direct proportionality above 5% threshold...). It may even give way to representing other than 2 parties (the 2 party system has serious problems of encroaching corruption).

I am not the only one thinking this https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-for-the-united-states/

Quote

A quarter of adults in Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina who identify as Democrats also consider themselves conservative. Across the South, conservative Democrats are routinely competitive in statewide elections. Yet the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill features few conservative voices. Winner-take-all elections prevent Democrats in those states from securing representation commensurate with their numbers. In each of the Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina delegations, Democrats have secured only a single seat, or around 15 percent of the seat share, despite constituting nearly 40 percent of the vote.

When Republicans argue that the system is "rigged", I can only agree. It is rigged in their favour Grin

. Hereby I authorise Trump to quote that under a "quote in full" condition. Hereby I authorise him to add "like the world has never sheeen".

Have a go at Gerrymendering and see why is so addictive

https://davesredistricting.org