Gronk. Have so much to do before Ellen gets here. I was just so wrecked yesterday I couldn't do a thing.

I got a free Costco membership (for about 1/4 year) a while back, and although Flatmate-at-the-Time and I went, we were pretty restrained in what we bought. The funny part about wandering the store is recognizing that, although the sales are name-brands, and they're in really big bins, not all of the prices are cheaper per unit than they would be in the grocery store. (Some are, but a lot of them aren't.)

It takes a nerd to save at Costco. If you just buy the bulk without regard to per-unit price, then you're probably a family of 12, or somebody who really really wants to stay away from grocery stores.

In re FNL, I think it is not spoilery to say that fully 3/4 of the speaking cast that plays footballers is shorter than Coach Taylor. Who isn't itty bitty, but, IRL he is too small to play Div I football for sure. His players are smaller than him. He's easily got 3-4 inches (and probably 30-40 lb.) on Saracen, e.g.

I think smaller actors -- and certainly skinnier actors -- create a more effective impression of youth, so that meant they could cast a bunch of early-20s guys with experience rather than an actual highschool class. Unfortunately, I think The Rock could totally wipe the floor with the entire Dillon High football team, and that I would pay to watch that.

(I mean, inasmuch as I would pay to watch The Rock chew popcorn.)

Sigh. Salon has an article [link] arguing against the electoral college. And while there are plenty of good arguments against the electoral college, "It gives disproportionate power to voters in small states" is not one of them. Mathematically, it doesn't work out that way. (Basically, North Dakota has more electoral votes per citizen than Florida does, but Florida's got a much bigger chance of deciding the national election, while in most elections, it's completely irrelevant which way North Dakota goes -- there are very very few elections decided by three electoral votes.)

(That's the traditional analysis. My issue with that analysis is that all the calculations are based on the assumption that Democratic and Republican voters are distributed evenly across the country. I'm almost certain that if you took into account percentages on how each state tends to vote, you'd end up that the voters with the most power are the ones in Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio and other states like that -- states with relatively big populations that ALSO tend to have pretty close elections. I tried running some test numbers on that a few years ago, and it seemed to work out the way I expected, but I never really looked into it further.)

It's the primary calendar that fucks things up the most. The electoral college just adds to the distortion.

Timelies all!

Just sitting here in my pajamas, watching "Legion of Superheroes". Quiet day.

Basically, North Dakota has more electoral votes per citizen than Florida does, but Florida's got a much bigger chance of deciding the national election, while in most elections, it's completely irrelevant which way North Dakota goes -- there are very very few elections decided by three electoral votes.)

.....I'm almost certain that if you took into account percentages on how each state tends to vote, you'd end up that the voters with the most power are the ones in Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio and other states like that -- states with relatively big populations that ALSO tend to have pretty close elections.

Umm two things. These arguments assume "counting" equals "your particular vote has the a mathematically greater probability of determining the winner". But the fact remains that Montana's voters are weighed more heavily per voter than New York cities in counting the votes. And if you are taking a game theoretic approach what you want is the highest probability, not of your vote being the determining one (very tiny probability: even in Florida 2000 changing ONE vote would not have changed the outcome). What you want is the best chance of your preferred candidate winning.

A system where (unlike the electoral college) the candidate with most votes wins means more people get the candidate of their choice elected than in a system like the electroral college where a candidate can win even with fewer votes than another candidate (as in Fl 2000).

However the game theoretic approach is the wrong approach anyway. Voting is a collective act anyway: as I said the odds of one vote determining the winner are very near zero. The non-voters actually have a tremendous argument that they are utility maximizers. Voting is something you do as a citizen; there is the hidden premise that "if only enough people do the same thing I do". You need to look at what is collectively rational - and of course the other people you are taking into account don't have to be within the bouhds of your state.

There is another related issue. Often the argument is that we had no electoral college politicians would ignore all but a handful of states (which is really what they do now). But in the absence an electoral college politicians would need votes regardless of what state they were from. The popular vote tends to be closer than the electoral vote. Given that we have had two elections in a row with very close popular votes, I don't think any politican would neglect any state. Yeah, Montana would get less candidate time than Ohio. But I think it does now, and in any case that is reasonable. In the absence of an electoral college you would have a lot fewer states ignored.

And yes, there are plenty of other problems in our system. But the electoral college is certainly one of them. (I'd say the way our Senate is set up is another.)

Ah, I have internet access. Did anything blow up while I was away?

These arguments assume "counting" equals "your particular vote has the a mathematically greater probability of determining the winner".

Right. I was specifically looking at voting power.

But the fact remains that Montana's voters are weighed more heavily per voter than New York cities in counting the votes.

But in a way that ends up not mattering. They've got more heavy influence over a much smaller number of votes -- a number so small that it comes close to having no influence at all. To take a smaller (and much more extreme) example, suppose there are two states. State A has 10 people, and one electoral vote. State B has 100 people and 9 electoral votes. Now, each person in state A can be said to be "weighted" with 1/10 of an electoral vote, and each person in State B with 9/100, so that each person in State A has a vote weighted more heavily, by your analysis. But it doesn't matter what anyone in State A actually does -- whoever has the majority in State B will win the election.

Your argument that voters in small states are "weighted more heavily per voter" would be valid if each state allocated electoral votes by percentage (though issues with rounding would lead to some interesting stuff there -- I'd have to play around with that to see what issues would come up.) But in our current system, the weight per voter isn't counted that way.

And like I said, I agree that there are plenty of problems with the electoral college. I just have not yet seen a convincing argument that "It gives too much power to voters in small states" is one of the problems.

(I don't like straight plurality, either. Way too much chance of several popular candidates splitting the vote. If I were in charge, we'd have some kind of preferential ballot system. Not sure which one, since there's no such thing as a perfect voting system, but just about all of the reasonable ones are preferable to straight plurality.)

Oh. Saws all. I get it.

Hee. In the college theater group at one point, late at night, some of us were sitting in the "office", and our friend Mike wanders in from the shop, to ask Jenn "Can I cut this (whatever it was) with the sawzall?"

And she looks at him and says "Mike. It's a SAWZALL. It...saws...all!"