Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Machismo]

Many boundaries are actually based on water more than land. Hence the weird borders all along the Mississippi River.

Touche

True story.

[PhaelixWW]

While I dislike a lot of the proposals I've seen for increasing the size of the House, largely on the basis that there's a threshold past which it becomes difficult to actually accomplish anything because there are so many people involved, I think the so-called Wyoming Rule would be a good compromise. Based on the 2010 census (because those are the latest numbers on Wikipedia), that would only require a modest increase from 435 seats to 547.

I go the other direction. In the grand scheme of things, the Wyoming Rule doesn't really change much of anything. It certainly doesn't affect the Electoral College much.

If you were going to suddenly find it possible to increase the size of the House, I feel like it should be increased by a fairly large margin. The fewer constituents each member has (and the less PAC money coming in), the more honest and faithful said politicians are bound to be. Make House members true servants of the public, instead of membership being a cash-generating position.

But again, I find it highly unlikely that such will ever happen.

[cubby]

Bill Bellicheck from the New England Patriots is declining his Medal, lol

That and the PGA are the things Trump cares most about I reckon.

That is pretty fucking great of Bill - nice move, and the right thing to do. Don't really want to be in the same camp as Rush and those two idiot House members. Can we put asterisks by their names after the 20th?

- - - Updated - - -

I go the other direction. In the grand scheme of things, the Wyoming Rule doesn't really change much of anything. It certainly doesn't affect the Electoral College much.

If you were going to suddenly find it possible to increase the size of the House, I feel like it should be increased by a fairly large margin. The fewer constituents each member has (and the less PAC money coming in), the more honest and faithful said politicians are bound to be. Make House members true servants of the public, instead of membership being a cash-generating position.

But again, I find it highly unlikely that such will ever happen.

@DarkTZeratul and others, when you start questioning what Phaelix means about "[not] really chang[ing] much" - ask him about the math. He and I went a couple of rounds on this and his perspective is very enlightening.

(this is regarding increasing the size of the House - the Wyoming Rule or others)

[Xyonai]

I caught the Parlor Data Breach story a bit late but goddamn that's some of the funniest shit. I'm still not convinced that Parlor was anything but a Honeypot for Feds with its already wonky data policies and this just seals the deal.

Fucking christ.

[DarkTZeratul]

I go the other direction. In the grand scheme of things, the Wyoming Rule doesn't really change much of anything. It certainly doesn't affect the Electoral College much.

If you were going to suddenly find it possible to increase the size of the House, I feel like it should be increased by a fairly large margin. The fewer constituents each member has (and the less PAC money coming in), the more honest and faithful said politicians are bound to be. Make House members true servants of the public, instead of membership being a cash-generating position.

But again, I find it highly unlikely that such will ever happen.

I suppose that depends on what your goal is in increasing the size of the House. The Wyoming Rule is purely about increasing parity with regards to proportional representation.

[Thekri]

I caught the Parlor Data Breach story a bit late but goddamn that's some of the funniest shit. I'm still not convinced that Parlor was anything but a Honeypot for Feds with its already wonky data policies and this just seals the deal.

Fucking christ.

I had the same thought, lol. The push for it was a little too on the nose with its "Do crimes here with no consequences" advertising.

However, Occams Razor, they probably just actually are that dumb. I have seen no evidence they are not as colossally stupid as they appear to be.

Edit: Also, describing it as a "Breach" is not descriptive to what actually happened. Their authentication company bailed on them, and took the locks off every single door on the platform with them. It wasn't really a "Hack" it was just the complete absence of anything resembling security.

[PhaelixWW]

I am saying what needs to be done, whether it is "reality" is of no consequence.

No, you're voicing a ridiculous opinion. So not only are you wrong, but even your goal is an impossible one.

Dissolving the Senate would cause far, far more problems than it would attempt to solve.

[Edge-]

However, Occams Razor, they probably just actually are that dumb. I have seen no evidence they are not as colossally stupid as they appear to be.

Given that on Wednesday they were livestreaming their own crimes and the crimes of others, maskless, often promoting their own streams that used their real name in it or identifying themselves by name on the stream.

Occams Razor is in full effect, they are actually just this dumb.

[Felya]

I was banned when it was posted, but that post about someone using the lack of email verification to get data, is bullshit. If you are getting verified through an API, if there is no response or denial from the verification end point, you are not getting through. Otherwise, you would be able to get through, by simply bypassing the email verification, even when it was active. If that was how it worked, the email verification would be completely useless.

The second part of that post is describing SQL injection, to get the data... which is dumb, since you already got through the authentication and can pull anything you want. If the first part were true, the second was unnecessary. You only have to do that if you don’t know the names or contents of tables, but if already got through authentication... just list everything...

The last bit... why would revealing a server name, help with this at all? You can figure that out pretty easily and it really serves no point, in the attack they described.

[PhaelixWW]

@DarkTZeratul and others, when you start questioning what Phaelix means about "[not] really chang[ing] much" - ask him about the math. He and I went a couple of rounds on this and his perspective is very enlightening.

(this is regarding increasing the size of the House - the Wyoming Rule or others)

To be fair, that argument was mostly surrounding the effect it would have on the Electoral College (little to none), not on its effect on routine House matters. I did concede that it would have slightly more of a beneficial effect there, though I personally doubt it would be terribly significant in the long run.

[cubby]

To be fair, that argument was mostly surrounding the effect it would have on the Electoral College (little to none), not on its effect on routine House matters. I did concede that it would have slightly more of a beneficial effect there, though I personally doubt it would be terribly significant in the long run.

Thanks for that clarification - yes, our conversation was more about the effects on the Electoral College (negligible, to my surprise). It would be interesting to see the effects on a litany of issues the House suffers if we double or quadrupled the size.

[Fugus]

Thanks for that clarification - yes, our conversation was more about the effects on the Electoral College (negligible, to my surprise). It would be interesting to see the effects on a litany of issues the House suffers if we double or quadrupled the size.

On my phone so will keep this short but how would the Wyoming option have little impact on the electoral college?

It would give California about another 20 electors, give Texas more, even North Carolina would have more while giving the smaller states representation more in line with their population.

Will check back later but wanted to ask.

[PhaelixWW]

On my phone so will keep this short but how would the Wyoming option have little impact on the electoral college?

It would give California about another 20 electors, give Texas more, even North Carolina would have more while giving the smaller states representation more in line with their population.

Will check back later but wanted to ask.

Because no matter the rule, it's always proportional to population. The rate of proportion (population per seat) may change, but the actual proportionality of the states doesn't, because the populations of the states isn't changing. The disparities that you see are basically just rounding errors, but rounding errors also go both ways, so attempting to push the rate one way or the other will not have consistent results, except for eventually narrowing in on the absolute proportion of the overall population of the states for either side.

For example, in the 2020 election, Biden beat Trump 306-232, or 56.88%-43.12% of the Electoral Votes. Under the Wyoming Rule, Biden's victory would have been 370-280. That 90 vote difference sounds like a lot, but in reality, that represents a 56.92%-43.08% Electoral Vote difference.

Meaning that the Wyoming Rule only changes the result by 0.04%.

Similarly, in 2016, the result was 306-232 for Trump over Clinton, or the same 370-280 under the Wyoming rule, for the same 0.04% difference... the other direction, despite the fact that Trump lost the popular vote.

Even if you increased House apportionment to 1 seat for every 30k population, pushing House membership to a staggering 10,291 members, that would only have resulted in a Trump victory in 2016 of 5875-4519, or 56.52% of EVs instead of the actual 56.88% or the 56.92% under the Wyoming Rule.

So even a nearly 23x increase in the size of the House would accomplish only a 0.36% shift in the actual Electoral College vote.

In the 2020 election, the results of the similar change would be somewhat more pronounced at 56.88% -> 57.99%, but still only a 1.11% shift for such a drastic increase in the House.

[Fugus]

Because no matter the rule, it's always proportional to population. The rate of proportion (population per seat) may change, but the actual proportionality of the states doesn't, because the populations of the states isn't changing. The disparities that you see are basically just rounding errors, but rounding errors also go both ways, so attempting to push the rate one way or the other will not have consistent results, except for eventually narrowing in on the absolute proportion of the overall population of the states for either side.

For example, in the 2020 election, Biden beat Trump 306-232, or 56.88%-43.12% of the Electoral Votes. Under the Wyoming Rule, Biden's victory would have been 370-280. That 90 vote difference sounds like a lot, but in reality, that represents a 56.92%-43.08% Electoral Vote difference.

Meaning that the Wyoming Rule only changes the result by 0.04%.

Similarly, in 2016, the result was 306-232 for Trump over Clinton, or the same 370-280 under the Wyoming rule, for the same 0.04% difference... the other direction, despite the fact that Trump lost the popular vote.

Even if you increased House apportionment to 1 seat for every 30k population, pushing House membership to a staggering 10,291 members, that would only have resulted in a Trump victory in 2016 of 5875-4519, or 56.52% of EVs instead of the actual 56.88% or the 56.92% under the Wyoming Rule.

So even a nearly 23x increase in the size of the House would accomplish only a 0.36% shift in the actual Electoral College vote.

In the 2020 election, the results of the similar change would be somewhat more pronounced at 56.88% -> 57.99%, but still only a 1.11% shift for such a drastic increase in the House.

Ah, thank you. I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of the end numbers.

I am thinking of it in the terms of voting representation per state. Just because it splits that way currently doesn’t always mean it will while the Wyoming option would ensure the proportionality is preserved through the entire process in the number of electors which then reduces the issues to winner takes all and lack of ranked choice voting.

Basically you guys were thinking mainly of just the end results as they are, I was thinking about it through the entire process to permanently fix that part of the system before it could turn into a bigger issue later.

But understood.

[cubby]

Because no matter the rule, it's always proportional to population. The rate of proportion (population per seat) may change, but the actual proportionality of the states doesn't, because the populations of the states isn't changing. The disparities that you see are basically just rounding errors, but rounding errors also go both ways, so attempting to push the rate one way or the other will not have consistent results, except for eventually narrowing in on the absolute proportion of the overall population of the states for either side.

For example, in the 2020 election, Biden beat Trump 306-232, or 56.88%-43.12% of the Electoral Votes. Under the Wyoming Rule, Biden's victory would have been 370-280. That 90 vote difference sounds like a lot, but in reality, that represents a 56.92%-43.08% Electoral Vote difference.

Meaning that the Wyoming Rule only changes the result by 0.04%.

Similarly, in 2016, the result was 306-232 for Trump over Clinton, or the same 370-280 under the Wyoming rule, for the same 0.04% difference... the other direction, despite the fact that Trump lost the popular vote.

Even if you increased House apportionment to 1 seat for every 30k population, pushing House membership to a staggering 10,291 members, that would only have resulted in a Trump victory in 2016 of 5875-4519, or 56.52% of EVs instead of the actual 56.88% or the 56.92% under the Wyoming Rule.

So even a nearly 23x increase in the size of the House would accomplish only a 0.36% shift in the actual Electoral College vote.

In the 2020 election, the results of the similar change would be somewhat more pronounced at 56.88% -> 57.99%, but still only a 1.11% shift for such a drastic increase in the House.

This took me like fourteen years to finally accept, and a big shout to PhaelixWW for his patience (I know he's responding to Fugus). And what really drives me insane is that part of my *feels* doesn't want to accept the math. It's infuriating.

[PhaelixWW]

Just because it splits that way currently doesn’t always mean it will while the Wyoming option would ensure the proportionality is preserved through the entire process in the number of electors which then reduces the issues to winner takes all and lack of ranked choice voting.

No, I mean, mathematically that's just wrong. That's the whole point. You're not changing the proportionality because the House of Representatives will always be directly proportional to the population. All you're doing is shifting around the cutoff for where the rounding errors occur, but that process has almost a zero net change overall. Some states will be more "representative", some states will be less, but the end result is a wash. And which states are more and which states are less will fluctuate as populations fluctuate. Whether a state benefits or suffers from the change has nothing to do with whether the state is a low- or high-population state.

This is a mathematical certainty, because the whole is always equal to the sum of its parts.

The effects can be represented by a logarithmic curve, but even the current level of House membership is close enough to the asymptote that pushing even further forward will have very limited effect.

[Fugus]

No, I mean, mathematically that's just wrong. That's the whole point. You're not changing the proportionality because the House of Representatives will always be directly proportional to the population. All you're doing is shifting around the cutoff for where the rounding errors occur, but that process has almost a zero net change overall. Some states will be more "representative", some states will be less, but the end result is a wash. And which states are more and which states are less will fluctuate as populations fluctuate. Whether a state benefits or suffers from the change has nothing to do with whether the state is a low- or high-population state.

This is a mathematical certainty, because the whole is always equal to the sum of its parts.

The effects can be represented by a logarithmic curve, but even the current level of House membership is close enough to the asymptote that pushing even further forward will have very limited effect.

So you are saying that if we actually got rid of Winner take all and had the electors awarded proportionally to that states popular vote, the net impact of the Wyoming option would still be virtually nil?

Just seems weird when we are in a system where Wyoming should only have like a third of a single representative if they were to stay in proportion with the country.

[Trifle]

So you are saying that if we actually got rid of Winner take all and had the electors awarded proportionally to that states popular vote, the net impact of the Wyoming option would still be virtually nil?

I think that's correct, because even though Wyoming has 1 seat when they should have 1/3 (or whatever), at the end of the day that still represents only 1 out of 435 total seats... or less than a quarter of a percent.

Switching to proportional instead of first past the post for the selection of state electors would have a much more dramatic impact in getting the popular vote inline with the electoral college vote, but given that each state determines how electors are selected by themselves, good luck getting that changed anytime soon.

[Themius]

No, you're voicing a ridiculous opinion. So not only are you wrong, but even your goal is an impossible one.

Dissolving the Senate would cause far, far more problems than it would attempt to solve.

Having a single proportional representative house is a ridiculous opinion? What problems would dissolving the senate create?

[Fugus]

I think that's correct, because even though Wyoming has 1 seat when they should have 1/3 (or whatever), at the end of the day that still represents only 1 out of 435 total seats... or less than a quarter of a percent.

Switching to proportional instead of first past the post for the selection of state electors would have a much more dramatic impact in getting the popular vote inline with the electoral college vote, but given that each state determines how electors are selected by themselves, good luck getting that changed anytime soon.

I know the proportional per state would have a greater impact, but was thinking about them combined.

If we have the proportional per state implemented, how much of an impact would that have on that system? Was thinking of them eventually getting both done at which point the order doesn't matter so long as we get there and baby steps if need be so long as we got there.

- - - Updated - - -

Having a single proportional representative house is a ridiculous opinion? What problems would dissolving the senate create?

Off the top of my head, laws that negatively impact low population states to benefit the higher population states just because they can. While I am a believer in having the overall rule being decided by the people democratically, that is just too much abuse if a group manages to take over that entity.

I know it isn't the most efficient to have them both, but those guard rails are a good thing to have so long as we can keep those guard rails from basically being used to hold us down in the process.