Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "TED-Ed"
channel.
-
824
-
619
-
50
-
37
-
The electoral college is always an interesting issue of debate. The 2016 election heated that debate up more than ever. Clinton accumulated more popular vote, but Trump won, mainly by turning several "safe" blue states red by small margins. Some call it a travesty of the election system, others argue that the electoral college did exactly what it was designed to do. Regardless of what position you take, and what candidate you favored, you must take one thing into account in this election, and every other Presidential election. The candidates campaigned according to this system. Had the race been a purely popular vote race, the campaigns, and quite possibly the outcomes, would have been much different. Take California and Texas for example...the two biggest prizes, and two very safe states for their respective parties. How many Republicans in California, and Democrats in Texas didn't bother to vote because they knew their candidate had no chance of winning the state? We obviously could never know. Not necessarily an argument in favor of the electoral college, but an explanation of why candidates run their campaigns completely differently because of it. Also consider the amount of effort spent in small swing States like Iowa and New Hampshire that would likely be ignored in a popular vote system. An argument in favor of the electoral college is that these states become more important. Another argument for it is that while certainly large states are still worth more electoral points, the fact that one candidate can blow out the other in a few large states and still lose overall by losing narrowly in a greater number of smaller states is an interesting phenomenon, and is exactly what happened in 2016.
33
-
25
-
15
-
It doesn't matter how many coins there are. Same probability with one coin. First flip, both people have 50% probability of getting heads. Second flip, whether the same coin or different coin, again 50% probability of getting the desired result. Where the twist comes is if both players on the second flip do not get the desired result. Then the advantage goes to the heads-tails player over the heads-heads player. Why? Because the desired results are P1 H-H and P2 H-T, right? First flip, both get heads, results logged. Okay, second flip, P1 gets tails, and P2 gets heads, the reverse of their desired result, again results are logged. P2 is still 1 flip away from victory. He got H-H but wanted H-T. You are still playing off a prior flip of H. You just need a T. 50% shot. P1 wanted got H-T, but wanted H-H. His prior flip was a T. He needs a minimum of two flips to get H-H, or 50% odds times 50% odds again = 25%. The number of coins is irrelevant.
13
-
13
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Want a good argument for the electoral system? The New York state gubernatorial race. New York City basically elects the governor of the state. The rest of the state might as well stuff coloring books in the ballot boxes. Now one may argue that NYC has the most population, so it's only fair. But on the other hand, they are mostly a monolithic voting Bloc (outside of Staten Island), with different priorities than the rest of the state. There is no diversity of ideas. Urban, suburban, and rural voters all have different needs. And even so, different localities have different needs. An urban voter in say Buffalo or Syracuse might have different needs than someone in NYC. But when one city contains nearly half the population of a state, that city calls the shots. And candidates from either party tend to cater to their needs in order to get elected. The same would apply to the U.S. as a whole, though not quite as dramatically. Candidates would cater to the needs of the mega population centers, and mostly ignore the rest of the country in a strictly popular vote system. Yes, occasionally you will get your George Pataki (not that he was great, but he's a great example), who won by a narrow margin by dominating upstate ballots, but 90% of the time you will get basically what California wants in a national election, since they have about a fifth of the entire nation's population, a huge margin of the rest of the country would have to in a sense "band together" to defeat them.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1