POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

We get jury duty from our driver's license here. So I registered to vote the next cycle. I throw my jury duty crap in the garbage

 

But Wyoming doesn't get as many electoral votes as California

 

It still has a significantly smaller number of voters per electoral vote than does California or a number of other states.

 

I always thought electoral college votes were based the population of the state, and that's why the census was so important. But I could, and probably am, be making that up

 

You aren't making it up. However, there is a limit to the number of representatives in the House (435) and each state is guaranteed one, plus 2 senators. So, every state gets a minimum of 3. The limitations with the required number create the imbalance.

 

Winner take all created the biggest discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral results in 2016.

 

I used to be pro electoral college, but the arguments for it have fallen apart for me.

1. “One person, one vote” just makes sense to me. We’re all voting for the same president and our votes should all be weighted equally.
2. The electoral college seems to be doing less to protect small states and more to dramatically increase the influence of a few midwestern states. I want our politicians fighting for votes everywhere, not just trying to swing a few thousand voters in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
3. Under the current system, ballots cast by democrats in red states and republicans in blue states may as well go in the trash.

 

Around 2015 or 16 I had a thread on rank order voting. It seems like a good way to get results more reflective of the mainstream rather having a tug of war.

 

Right on time.

 

Time will tell if Johnson will be good for the UK, but his election has already increased support for Scottish independence.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...s-agenda-in-blow-for-boris-johnson/ar-AAGKLLF

interesting development

 

1. A general election may be Johnson’s best chance for a hard Brexit. He won’t have a popular vote majority for another Brexit referendum, but he may have one in the House of Commons if he can come to some sort of agreement with Nigel Farage.
2. Brexit won’t lead to the breakup of the EU, but it may lead to the breakup of the UK.

 

oh, this absolutely sets up the hard brexit. done and done. because the remainers are split across two uncooperative parties. now it just remains to see what the consequences will be.

 

I don't have any idea how parliament works.

 

I'm starting to think it may be more incompetent than the US system.

 

So I have barely kept up with this, but do I understand correctly that if there is a hard brexit and they just say "goodbye" that they will basically have no trade agreements and treaties with these countries of the EU?

 

correct, so far as I understand it.

 

That seems........................dumb.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0a9bb0-cd4d-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html

Summarizes it well.

Reverts back to 95 WTO agreement, which means lots of tarriffs. Didn't realize the Ireland piece of this either.

 

there are effectively 3 positions, all in the minority. hard leave, soft leave, and stay. Soft leave teamed up with hard leave for awhile, began splintering, and now is enjoying temporary common cause with stay. but the end result will be an election in which the two parties for which there are stay members will not coalition together and a party who is dedicated solely to hard leave is cooperating to not run against the leave party who just transitioned from semi hard leave to full hard leave... so that's that.

simultaneously, a majority want to leave and a majority don't want a hard Brexit. but it is looking like it is hard or stay.