In 2004, I cam across an article, and I don't remember what publication it was in, about the ten year anniversary of the infamous 1994 baseball strike. The point of the story was to point out things the work stoppage did for the long run, instead of the obvious stuff it effected in the short term. The story talked about the baseball players who retired at the "end" of the 1994 season. It made me think about those players who had unplanned off time due to the strike that they normally wouldn't have. Maybe they would have retired in 5 years from 1994, but the time off with family and the overall slowdown made them think maybe it wasn't worth it? I have been thinking about that article a lot during the pandemic because there have been sports stoppages, work stoppages and other stoppages, obviously. It makes me think how everyone's perception about the world we used to know might be more skewed now that we got way out of the rhythm of a typical year. AS much as I love sports, I have to admit, my own perception of how important sports are changed, and in a negative way (unlike everyone screaming about getting sports back). I have kinda thought during this pandemic thing about how little sports actually matter. Like I said, I am a huge sports fan, but I honestly have to admit I am far less inclined to watch a bunch of spoiled, overpaid sports stars now. It doesn't just end there. My job and side job also seem less important now. Maybe I am one of those people that might have an abrupt career change because the pandemic has shown me that my job, as a whole, isn't as important as everyone makes it out to be, and maybe I was leaning that way already, but a stop or slowdown has given me more clarity.
Some people want things to just go back to the way it was, while others maybe see a change that frankly ha been for the better. What has the pandemic done for your perspective on things in your life that maybe were getting too serious that the pandemic has shined new light that showed it wasn't as serious as you thought? Or maybe just how has it changed your thinking?
Not that much has actually changed for me. The grocery store I worked at closed on February 29 due to low volume (if they knew about the pandemic, they might have kept it open – lots of toilet paper and hand sanitizer sales, and the lease didn't expire until the end of July). My classes moved online instead of stopping entirely, and the week where everything started to shut down happened to be spring break week.
Summer: Almost nothing changed. I still had my internship, and while I no longer had a grocery store job, it had nothing to do with COVID. I still ate out at restaurants, making sure to choose those with takeout or outdoor seating. I don't like large groups of people at parties, anyway.
Now I'm back in school, online of course. I no longer have to ride the bus for an hour and a half each way. I occasionally had online classes before COVID when the professor couldn't make it to school in time, so we were somewhat familiar with Zoom already.
Many people have lost their jobs temporarily or permanently, but I am not one of them. I also personally know absolutely nobody who has tested positive.
It's just hardened my belief that I'm living on borrowed time and I need to make the most of what I have left. I more or less adopted that attitude after almost being killed by a car and more so after my parents died. People try to convince me that I have all the time in the world, I don't buy it. Things like COVID aren't convincing me of anything to the contrary.
The pandemic has caused me to play a lot more Dungeons and Dragons, so my character leveled up and his Perception modifier went up by 1. So yes, the pandemic has affected my Perception quite a bit.
Serious answer: I ended up leaving my job of 10½ years because of the pandemic. It wasn't worth the money to risk catching a deadly disease because the customers were too spoiled to follow the rules, security was too spineless to enforce them, and management wanted to unnecessarily expose us to that.
People are even dumber than I thought. I've known for a long time that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but now stupidity is a virtue. So many proudly stupid people; too stupid to even understand they are stupid, much less how stupid.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2020, 05:03:01 PM
People are even dumber than I thought. I've known for a long time that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but now stupidity is a virtue. So many proudly stupid people; too stupid to even understand they are stupid, much less how stupid.
That might be a record for "stupids" in one sentence.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2020, 05:03:01 PM
People are even dumber than I thought. I've known for a long time that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but now stupidity is a virtue. So many proudly stupid people; too stupid to even understand they are stupid, much less how stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning—Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%94Kruger_effect)
(automatic URLs break on en-dashes)
People think most people's intelligence is near the same as theirs. Both bolded statements support that, but in opposite directions. The linked article supports the second bolded statement, but the first (that you, for example, didn't realize that people were
that stupid) is also true.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 10, 2020, 05:03:01 PM
People are even dumber than I thought. I've known for a long time that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but now stupidity is a virtue. So many proudly stupid people; too stupid to even understand they are stupid, much less how stupid.
People aren't really any more stupid. Social media just keeps making it easier and more inviting for people to let everyone else know they're stupid.
Lockdown has made me realize how lucky I was to be able to go to school. I always took it for granted that, in America, school is just a fact of life. Now I'm stuck at home, trying to focus on the teacher's Zoom lecture with the rest of the internet at my fingertips, and it's really, really hard. Although I'm a senior, I'll never take something mundane like school for granted again. Of course, I'll also probably never walk into my high school again, so it may be a moot point.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 10, 2020, 05:42:53 PM
Lockdown has made me realize how lucky I was to be able to go to school. I always took it for granted that, in America, school is just a fact of life. Now I'm stuck at home, trying to focus on the teacher's Zoom lecture with the rest of the internet at my fingertips, and it's really, really hard. Although I'm a senior, I'll never take something mundane like school for granted again. Of course, I'll also probably never walk into my high school again, so it may be a moot point.
Yeah. I'm a sophomore and focusing on Zoom can be really, really, really difficult, especially with some of the more dull teachers. I know last year's seniors had a tough go of it (leaving without graduation) and this years seniors may do so again. At least I go to my school's campus every weekday and Saturday for 2 hours' swim practice.
On the plus side, the pandemic has also revealed that we as a society are still capable of massive and sudden change if properly motivated. There can be a brief window of clarity before the stupidity kicks in and the usual bullcrap reasserts itself.
Regardless of their necessity or effectiveness, the lock downs this spring were a remarkable display of unity. Makes me wonder what else could be accomplished if almost everyone simultaneously does the same thing.
People are stupid. A lot of friends who I considered highly intelligent and who I knew to be highly educated who lack the ability to do simple math and understand basic social statistics.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 11, 2020, 09:37:13 AM
On the plus side, the pandemic has also revealed that we as a society are still capable of massive and sudden change if properly motivated. There can be a brief window of clarity before the stupidity kicks in and the usual bullcrap reasserts itself.
Regardless of their necessity or effectiveness, the lock downs this spring were a remarkable display of unity. Makes me wonder what else could be accomplished if almost everyone simultaneously does the same thing.
Makes me wonder what would happen if we all bit the bullet for two months and locked down again. Cases would go through the floor and we might be able to have some kind of life again. Of course, this applies more for me than most people because where I live currently has the highest rate of cases per capita, by far, in the state.
Most people aren't stupid.
Most people choose to consume bias-confirming material.
Most people can't help fighting back in an online argument, whether they have a good argument or not.
Depends on what we're preceiving. Or perceiving, if you wish. :-D :-D
One thing it's done is to sharpen my perception that the majority of media outlets and reporters are biased and have a specific narrative they want to promote. For the press to claim it's the watchdog on government, its minions have been far too eager to accept, lap up, and spread certain messages without questioning them.
It's hard to believe that a reporter can cover the "reopen the economy" movement fairly if they've changed their Twitter handles to include phrases like "Joe 'Stay Home and Save Lives' Blow."
Quote from: hbelkins on September 11, 2020, 02:27:26 PM
One thing it's done is to sharpen my perception that the majority of media outlets and reporters are biased and have a specific narrative they want to promote.
And that goes for both those on the Left (most of them) and those on the Right (few of them).
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 11, 2020, 02:27:26 PM
One thing it's done is to sharpen my perception that the majority of media outlets and reporters are biased and have a specific narrative they want to promote.
And that goes for both those on the Left (most of them) and those on the Right (few of them).
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
Or just decide for yourself what you think or believe. But that applies to a lot of things and not just COVID. Either way the way news is presented nowadays tends to be sensationalized one way or the other.
I want sports. I wasn't a sports diehard before. In fact, I absolutely hated, hated, hated March Madness. I got so sick of hearing about it, especially when my local university was in it. But now I want it back in the worst way.
I also realized that some political blogs I had been a fan of for 15 years were not my friends after all, because they completely sold out their principles for ad revenues. So many friendships, gone. It literally broke my heart, and that's how I ended up having a pulmonary embolism and possible heart attack in April. Some people and blogs just are not good friends, and they'll stab millions of fans in the back just for money.
My life hasn't changed too much. I was without internet access after my community college and nearest library branch closed until late July, when I finally got home Internet access! :bigass: I wear a mask whenever I go out, and it annoys me to see people who don't, including those who live in my apartment complex. I had to stop going to the gym and seeing my personal trainer since gyms were covid hot spots, but that has since resumed. When it comes to our political leaders, my perception has remained that the same: THEY ARE COMPLETELY USELESS! :banghead: On the other hand, I did miss watching sports, and was very happy when the NBA restarted its season in the bubble, and am very happy that the 2020 NFL season is proceeding on schedule. Go Green Bay Packers! GO PACK GO!
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
I feel like we've been down this road, and maybe not so long ago, either. But anyways, don't feel that way (https://fivethirtyeight.com/).
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 04:40:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
I feel like we've been down this road, and maybe not so long ago, either. But anyways, don't feel that way (https://fivethirtyeight.com/).
We have.
What makes you say 538 is more level-headed than other outlets? (genuinely asking)
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 04:45:34 PM
What makes you say 538 is more level-headed than other outlets? (genuinely asking)
I read most of the articles on their site and have listened to their podcasts - politics, sports, and now COVID-related - for a while now, and I think they're honest, self-aware, and willing to discuss the media itself, their role in it, and the inherent biases on both sides. Besides which, they're a data-based journalism site. They wait for the data and use it to make conclusions, which I love, being a bit of a data nerd myself. I really do believe they're about as objective as you can get in our current polarized era. I've never once read an article and thought, yikes, these guys are clearly favoring Party X or Narrative Y.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 11, 2020, 04:20:51 PM
My life hasn't changed too much. I was without internet access after my community college and nearest library branch closed until late July, when I finally got home Internet access! :bigass: I wear a mask whenever I go out, and it annoys me to see people who don't, including those who live in my apartment complex. I had to stop going to the gym and seeing my personal trainer since gyms were covid hot spots, but that has since resumed. When it comes to our political leaders, my perception has remained that the same: THEY ARE COMPLETELY USELESS! :banghead: On the other hand, I did miss watching sports, and was very happy when the NBA restarted its season in the bubble, and am very happy that the 2020 NFL season is proceeding on schedule. Go Green Bay Packers! GO PACK GO!
I kind of anticipated the gyms closing and bought a ton of weight sets along with benches a couple days before it happened. It's not ideal and I want to go back to the diversity of the gym but it's still better than just doing hundreds of pushups for strength training exercises.
Regarding running there was a roughly ten week period I jumped from 30 miles a week to 50 out of boredom. I'm about at 37-45 most weeks now but that's only because almost outdoor recreational activity is no longer off limits.
Oh it just turned my 3rd bedroom into a workshop - for work.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2020, 06:21:29 PM
Oh it just turned my 3rd bedroom into a workshop - for work.
My wife has been running her own little mask sales gig on the side out of a spare bedroom. Apparently she makes something like $3 dollars a mask. She's big into crafts so I think it's more of something to do more than anything.
definitely completely different on socializing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2020, 07:07:28 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2020, 06:21:29 PM
Oh it just turned my 3rd bedroom into a workshop - for work.
My wife has been running her own little mask sales gig on the side out of a spare bedroom. Apparently she makes something like $3 dollars a mask. She's big into crafts so I think it's more of something to do more than anything.
No. This is the effect of working remotely due to the company closing the office... and it's still off limits without approval from the client.
This year has been a weird one, all right.
When I think back to how I felt in March, I think the way this has turned out is pretty clearly on the better side of all possibilities. I don't say that to downplay the severity of the virus, but when you look back on the early panic, it certainly could have been even worse, much worse. Everyone had largely adapted to the "new normal" by about June or so, and the days/weeks/months since then just seem to have been... happening.
As far as the effects of the pandemic:
-My sense of time is completely warped. What even is a week anymore? What even is a weekend anymore? One just blends into the next.
-Large events are either going virtual, going outside, or in some cases, not happening. How much this affects you depends on how often you participated in such events.
-Mask wearing is a pretty normal part of life. "Remember your mask!" has become a tired, overused phrase. At this point, it's habit.
-School is a very interesting sub-plot that I haven't heard nearly as much about on the news, etc., as I would have expected.
-Despite my previous comments downplaying the return of traffic to the roads, it's definitely mostly back to normal on that front too. Rush hour is still somewhat subdued, but it's closer to February levels than April levels. And mid-day almost seems busier than it ever was.
Other than that, not a whole lot is different in September than it was in March. I'm not a very social person, so I'm actually reasonably happy that the whole world basically pushed "reset" on socializing. Maybe I won't feel as out-of-place and awkward in social settings when this ends, or more likely, everyone will, so it won't be as noticeable, lol! :-D
This pandemic has felt like a negative preview of what my life could look like in retirement in some respects. While work from home has its benefits, in some ways it's the worst of both worlds - I still have to get up early to go for work, but I don't get the benefit of being able to talk to my coworkers, and a lot of the stuff I loved about my job (helping with the HPMS field survey, traveling around the region and elsewhere for study and working group meeting, etc.) is gone now due to the pandemic. Most of my family (especially the people most involved with family gatherings) is older too, so the long gap in visiting my parents from Christmas to Memorial Day (the longest in my life, in fact) is a slight preview of what it will be like when they're gone (I still had phone calls at least, but it's not the same). As someone who doesn't really have a social life outside of work, family gatherings, and roadmeets, it was a special kind of hell, and has been detrimental to my mental state (seriously, it got really bad before I went home for Memorial Day, and I had really started hating my job up until an outdoor meeting for a study in Chestertown a couple weeks ago reminded me what I like about it). Really not looking forward to getting old because of that! Haven't been able to do much travel, either. And I don't know what it is, but the drive between Rochester and Albany almost feels longer, even though I'm objectively making it in less time due to reduced traffic on the Thruway (I remember wishing last year to be able to make my drives without encountering congestion - I guess I should be careful what I wish for, since I got it in the form of a pandemic!).
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 08:28:32 PM
-My sense of time is completely warped. What even is a week anymore? What even is a weekend anymore? One just blends into the next.
Definitely. Plus time just flies by now - it's very hard to believe it's already September.
Quote
-School is a very interesting sub-plot that I haven't heard nearly as much about on the news, etc., as I would have expected.
Interesting you mention that. We've had a decent amount of school coverage here in Albany, but I did notice that Rochester had less of it - and half of WROC's coverage on the subject is actually produced by WTEN in Albany (the giveaway is if the story is from Corina (https://www.rochesterfirst.com/author/corina-cappabianca/) Cappabianca (https://www.news10.com/author/corina-cappabianca/) and that the stories feature places in the Capital District, like Schenectady)!
Quote
-Despite my previous comments downplaying the return of traffic to the roads, it's definitely mostly back to normal on that front too. Rush hour is still somewhat subdued, but it's closer to February levels than April levels. And mid-day almost seems busier than it ever was.
Definitely true. Traffic on the Northway around noon on a weekday feels high. Not morning rush levels, but not too far off (although I don't regularly travel the part that regularly gets congested in the morning rush hour; afternoon is another story, depending on how things settle out with exit 4).
Not understanding how college normally is. Being a freshman during this is confusing, but I credit my university's efforts to keep us on campus this semester to make the best of the situation
- dining and classes have a different system and occupancy restrictions than normal so I have no clue how those should work/feel
- can't play sports. Every basketball rim has been unscrewed from the backboard and nets taken down for volleyball/tennis
- no recreation (aside from going to the gym to work out). Foosball, pool, and ping pong tables have no equipment
- the Big Ten not playing football is stupid. High school in Indiana is playing. With Fans. The pros are playing. Some with fans. College is getting underway in a lot of places. Idk what the exact fan situation is. Big Ten, with WAAAY more money than the group of five conferences and thus greater ability to implement protective measures: nothing :banghead:
Quote from: I-55 on September 11, 2020, 10:16:08 PM
- the Big Ten not playing football is stupid. High school in Indiana is playing. With Fans. The pros are playing. Some with fans. College is getting underway in a lot of places. Idk what the exact fan situation is. Big Ten, with WAAAY more money than the group of five conferences and thus greater ability to implement protective measures: nothing :banghead:
Well, at least one university in Indiana is playing football this fall. Thank God for the Atlantic Coast Conference?
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2020, 10:07:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 08:28:32 PM
-My sense of time is completely warped. What even is a week anymore? What even is a weekend anymore? One just blends into the next.
Definitely. Plus time just flies by now - it's very hard to believe it's already September.
Yeah, it's weird. March feels simultaneously like just a couple minutes ago but also several decades ago.
One one hand, not much happens/changes from day to day in this stay-at-home era, but on the other hand, it's been a very news-heavy year, and keeping up seems to consume a bit more mental energy when you're not interacting with other people or "in the real world" as much as usual.
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2020, 10:07:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 08:28:32 PM
... And mid-day almost seems busier than it ever was.
Definitely true. Traffic on the Northway around noon on a weekday feels high.
I wasn't even thinking so much of the freeways (although them too), but the commercial corridors, especially Ridge Road in Webster, have been an absolute nightmare from noon right through the PM rush. This past week they've been constructing a new sidewalk right on the busiest stretch of NY 404, making the already precarious single lane in each direction + TWLTL situation even worse.
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 11, 2020, 02:27:26 PM
One thing it's done is to sharpen my perception that the majority of media outlets and reporters are biased and have a specific narrative they want to promote.
And that goes for both those on the Left (most of them) and those on the Right (few of them).
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
It's not whether an outlet is balanced toward the Left or the Right, it's whether it's balanced toward $ or $$. The same media outlets those on the right criticize because they're pushing a liberal narrative are criticized by the left for pushing a conservative narrative. Because no matter what they're going to push the narrative of whatever makes them more money. Either through what will benefit the principals of the company (this bill will hurt us personally so we will demonize it), the shareholders (getting people upset about this means we'll get more viewers, or reporting this will upset our advertisers), or the journalists (not asking this hard question means we are more likely to be able to interview this person in the future).
If no stance benefits the media outlet, you'll just see a bunch of people quoted giving their opinions without any sort of analysis as to whether any of them are themselves pushing a narrative or even making any rational sense. "John Doe says he supports the new turnpike, since it will help him get to work ten minutes faster. Jane Smith opposes the turnpike because she is afraid it would allow the eastern states like New York to send AIDS-contaminated materials through the neighborhood.* We report, you decide! The truth is probably in the middle!"
So the question to keep in mind when reading, say, the
Washington Post, is not answering "Does this story benefit the Left or the Right?" but rather "Does this story benefit Jeff Bezos?"
Thus why a lot of the non-USA outlets feel more balanced–not only do they not have a dog in the fight, but many of them, such as the BBC, are not-for-profit, so they don't have any reason to push any narrative. They get paid no matter what.
* https://tulsaworld.com/archives/greenpeace-helps-rally-against-creek-turnpike/article_d2b40e78-cc62-5911-8587-7fa0735902e3.html
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2020, 11:23:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 11, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 11, 2020, 02:27:26 PM
One thing it's done is to sharpen my perception that the majority of media outlets and reporters are biased and have a specific narrative they want to promote.
And that goes for both those on the Left (most of them) and those on the Right (few of them).
Sometimes I feel like the only way I can get halfway level-headed news is to find an outlet from outside the USA.
It's not whether an outlet is balanced toward the Left or the Right, it's whether it's balanced toward $ or $$. The same media outlets those on the right criticize because they're pushing a liberal narrative are criticized by the left for pushing a conservative narrative. Because no matter what they're going to push the narrative of whatever makes them more money. Either through what will benefit the principals of the company (this bill will hurt us personally so we will demonize it), the shareholders (getting people upset about this means we'll get more viewers, or reporting this will upset our advertisers), or the journalists (not asking this hard question means we are more likely to be able to interview this person in the future).
If no stance benefits the media outlet, you'll just see a bunch of people quoted giving their opinions without any sort of analysis as to whether any of them are themselves pushing a narrative or even making any rational sense. "John Doe says he supports the new turnpike, since it will help him get to work ten minutes faster. Jane Smith opposes the turnpike because she is afraid it would allow the eastern states like New York to send AIDS-contaminated materials through the neighborhood.* We report, you decide! The truth is probably in the middle!"
So the question to keep in mind when reading, say, the Washington Post, is not answering "Does this story benefit the Left or the Right?" but rather "Does this story benefit Jeff Bezos?"
Thus why a lot of the non-USA outlets feel more balanced–not only do they not have a dog in the fight, but many of them, such as the BBC, are not-for-profit, so they don't have any reason to push any narrative. They get paid no matter what.
* https://tulsaworld.com/archives/greenpeace-helps-rally-against-creek-turnpike/article_d2b40e78-cc62-5911-8587-7fa0735902e3.html
As far as "getting paid no matter what" is concerned, FOX News is (arguably) the only news/infotainment organization in the USA that is able to get 10% or greater profit margins from its day-to-day operations (including news gathering) before it has to collect a single dollar of advertising. That speaks to a sort of media power that the BBC, which has to go before Parliament for its funding, is hard-pressed to match.
Fox is just a brand in a much larger portfolio including the Wall Street Journal, British Sky news, and dozens of other properties controlled by the Murdoch family. So again, it's just a game of "what rich guy does this benefit?" Fox's success is because they have their target market all to themselves, not because the product is any better.
QuoteAs someone who doesn't really have a social life outside of work, family gatherings, and roadmeets, it was a special kind of hell, and has been detrimental to my mental state (seriously, it got really bad before I went home for Memorial Day, and I had really started hating my job up until an outdoor meeting for a study in Chestertown a couple weeks ago reminded me what I like about it).
Honestly, I do not think my mental state has even come close to recovering. I am glad that we can clinch roads again though.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2020, 08:26:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2020, 07:07:28 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2020, 06:21:29 PM
Oh it just turned my 3rd bedroom into a workshop - for work.
My wife has been running her own little mask sales gig on the side out of a spare bedroom. Apparently she makes something like $3 dollars a mask. She's big into crafts so I think it's more of something to do more than anything.
No. This is the effect of working remotely due to the company closing the office... and it's still off limits without approval from the client.
That's what happened with my wife too. Fortunately she had a small office set up already and her job gave her a lap top a couple months in.
I've largely realized that I am fine without much human interaction. On the whole I'm happier and less stressed than I was when I had to go to the office every day, and since I'm not really around people at all I don't suffer from the fear of missing out that I do normally.
I will say I've also become even more socially awkward - once every few weeks I have to go into the office for some meeting of some sort and I find that I'm even quieter/less quick to jump into conversations than normal, so there's definitely been some amount of damage done by the pandemic.
Quote from: corco on September 12, 2020, 01:01:34 PM
I've largely realized that I am fine without much human interaction. On the whole I'm happier and less stressed than I was when I had to go to the office every day, and since I'm not really around people at all I don't suffer from the fear of missing out that I do normally.
I will say I've also become even more socially awkward - once every few weeks I have to go into the office for some meeting of some sort and I find that I'm even quieter/less quick to jump into conversations than normal, so there's definitely been some amount of damage done by the pandemic.
I have always needed time without human interaction. What is destroying me personally is that I currently have little human interaction (some of it due to personal issues beyond COVID that I am in therapy for), and half of the virtual office interactions I have turned into complaining about the politicians. I barely am, if ever, in a solid mood by the end of the workday.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: corco on September 12, 2020, 01:01:34 PM
I've largely realized that I am fine without much human interaction. On the whole I'm happier and less stressed than I was when I had to go to the office every day, and since I'm not really around people at all I don't suffer from the fear of missing out that I do normally.
I will say I've also become even more socially awkward - once every few weeks I have to go into the office for some meeting of some sort and I find that I'm even quieter/less quick to jump into conversations than normal, so there's definitely been some amount of damage done by the pandemic.
I have always needed time without human interaction. What is destroying me personally is that I currently have little human interaction (some of it due to personal issues beyond COVID that I am in therapy for), and half of the virtual office interactions I have turn into complaining about the politicians. I barely am, if ever, in a solid mood by the end of the workday.
Ironically I've found the inverse has been true for me because of the nature of my job. It's starting to taper but for a couple months I was dealing with having to do Q&A with an employee base that I didn't have a lot of answers for. To that end I was also at my main office far more than normal for an inordinate amount of time. On the personal side I along with my wife were the only able body family that was available to help out doing things like grocery/supply runs for awhile.
My loneliness has become almost crippling some days. I was always the side friend, the one where I consider some people essential to my life while their view is that they're just fine without my presence. But this has made this even more obvious.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 12, 2020, 03:50:42 PM
My loneliness has become almost crippling some days. I was always the side friend, the one where I consider some people essential to my life while their view is that they're just fine without my presence. But this has made this even more obvious.
I'm really sorry to hear this. I'm lucky to be married and both of us are going to work most of the time so we have outlets. But I miss going out to drinks and dinner with friends. We were also supposed to go to Nashville next week with two other couples and that's not happening. My son's wedding was postponed to next year and we haven't seen his fiance or him since the Holidays.
So that's the big thing for me. Treasure time with friends and family.
Anyone notice that they've become more clumsy and more prone to forgetting things since the pandemic started? A few weeks ago I accidentally spilled an entire bag of frozen corn on the counter (a lot of which fell in the crack between the counter and the stove and which is still there, because I have no way to get it out), and just this morning, I forgot to cut my toast before rinsing my knife off.
It's also amazing how many things we used to take for granted before the pandemic - stuff like being able to buy whatever food you wanted whenever you wanted, or just go on the road and travel at any time (work schedule permitting, of course). If someone had told me that, for example, I'd have a grocery run where I could go to every single store in the area I could think of and still not find enough soup for the week or frozen vegetables, I would have thought they were crazy... and yet that actually happened, back in March. I still need to go to WalMart for paper products and cleaning supplies, because I can't get them at Hannaford. They're always out. Bare shelves are still around, even after the worst of the supply shortages have resolved. Completely unheard of in this country before COVID-19. It feels third world.
I remember, working up to a major life goal that I accomplished last year, that I had been getting impatient and telling people that if I didn't get it done last year, I had a feeling that I never would. People told me I was crazy. Then the pandemic hit, the world went on pause, and now the future of my job hangs in the balance as the state figures out how to deal with a deficit that more than doubled due to the pandemic, with aid from Congress looking increasingly unlikely (after losing my last job in part to the sequestration and government shutdown of 2013, I told myself that I'd never again let myself work in a job that could be affected by Congress... looks like I failed in that respect). I'm feeling vindicated on that feeling.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 12, 2020, 03:50:42 PM
My loneliness has become almost crippling some days. I was always the side friend, the one where I consider some people essential to my life while their view is that they're just fine without my presence. But this has made this even more obvious.
Same. I've been on the periphery of every social circle I've ever been in, beyond immediate family, for my entire life. It sucks.
I'm introverted, and have a pretty small social circle, but I'm cool with that. I've actually been able to hang out with my friends more, in a sense, since once the pandemic hit we piled into a Discord server to facilitate our weekly D&D game. Now, whereas we were hanging out in person once a week, sometimes one of us will stream a video game midweek and we get to hang out in a group call doing that. Because of the pandemic, two of my friends started a business with me, so I usually end up going over to their house to work on that about once every other week, as well.
Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2020, 08:40:55 PM
I told myself that I'd never again let myself work in a job that could be affected by Congress... looks like I failed in that respect.
I mean, to some extent,
every job can be legislated out of existence by Congress. Some are just easier to affect than others.
The pandemic has affected me, though it's a bit difficult to see how. Earlier this year before the pandemic my dad passed away, so I've had to take some responsibility to help take care of my family. Whether by picking up groceries or buying my own gas for my car, I've had to learn to take care of some things (maybe some things I already should have been doing).
My part time job as a referee's been indefinitely been postponed, but I decided not to find a job since my family was well off and since others needed one. But not all is doom and gloom. I've picked up playing guitar and piano in the band at my church, which has probably been the most rewarding thing through this. I've also volunteered elsewhere at my church, which is my happy place right now.
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that we need other people. I never realized how much of an extrovert I am (ok, extroverted introvert) until this pandemic. Other people have been my support through the pandemic and it sucks that we have to stay away.
Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2020, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 12, 2020, 03:50:42 PM
My loneliness has become almost crippling some days. I was always the side friend, the one where I consider some people essential to my life while their view is that they're just fine without my presence. But this has made this even more obvious.
Same. I've been on the periphery of every social circle I've ever been in, beyond immediate family, for my entire life. It sucks.
Yeah, same here. Sigh.
Not occupying the same physical space as co-workers makes work a little more boring. I'm one of the few people not tele-commuting and I can literally only see two people from my desk. Yeah you can use the work-related chat app for some small talk and light humor, but it's not the same as chit-chat in person. And there's an added layer of self-censoring with the chat app because that shit doesn't disappear into the ether after it's said, unlike words spoken in person among friends and colleagues.
So you can't be as honest about certain things or people.
I am not a social butterfly at all. I have friends, yes, but I am not a person that has to be social to survive, so the pandemic hasn't affected me one bit there. I am, however, shocked to see that I am actually missing walking into stores and seeing people's faces. I am missing seeing people smile. I never thought I would feel that way.
Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2020, 08:40:55 PMThen the pandemic hit, the world went on pause, and now the future of my job hangs in the balance as the state figures out how to deal with a deficit that more than doubled due to the pandemic, with aid from Congress looking increasingly unlikely (after losing my last job in part to the sequestration and government shutdown of 2013, I told myself that I'd never again let myself work in a job that could be affected by Congress... looks like I failed in that respect). I'm feeling vindicated on that feeling.
Looks like Congress is going to agree to an extension of the Highway Trust Fund spending, so that should keep you safe. New York doesn't fund roads from the General Fund, does it? Do you have a dedicated Road Fund?
One thing I've realized is that political articles and videos get me more agitated than I care to be–and that goes just as much for ones supporting my viewpoint as those contradicting it. Some of the guys I had just started to watch a lot of on YouTube because their thoughts really resonated with me, as it turns out, were the first to go. I now won't even tap on a news headline if I think it might get me riled up. So I guess you could say my perception of the media has soured.
On a positive note, I've been very encouraged by everyone in my church. Some of them are very vocal on social media about not wearing a mask, while others haven't been to church since March, and most people are somewhere in between–but I've never witnessed a single argument or even a dirty look at church this whole time. Everyone I've seen has apparently decided to afford grace and leeway to everyone else's opinions and convictions–no matter what side of the debate people are on. In that regard, my perception of my congregation has warmed.
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2020, 02:38:17 PM
One thing I've realized is that political articles and videos get me more agitated than I care to be–and that goes just as much for ones supporting my viewpoint as those contradicting it. Some of the guys I had just started to watch a lot of on YouTube because their thoughts really resonated with me, as it turns out, were the first to go.
I hate living in a swing state. Every other ad is a political advertisement of some sort. And every newscast is about one of four people coming to visit...or will be visiting soon.
If we didn't have such a significant number of fencesitters that change their minds day to day, I wonder if political ads and visits would diminish.
Quote from: Rothman on September 14, 2020, 06:03:24 PM
If we didn't have such a significant number of fencesitters that change their minds day to day, I wonder if political ads and visits would diminish.
I don't think it has anything to do with the volume of swing voters. If anything, there's historically very few of those. It has more to do with the electoral college and the way our elections are decided. You're always going to have swing states. It's just unrealistic and nonviable to expect the electoral map to stay the same from one election to the next.
On a completely different topic, it kind of feels like this entire year since March has been basically a single Covid season, and now fall is coming and 3/4 of the year has undeniably slipped away. The transition from summer to fall is always the season change I notice most. It tends to mess with my emotions, and I can't help but think that's going to be the case this year more than ever. I'm just so not ready for the end of long summer evenings and nice weather.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2020, 03:21:06 PM
I hate living in a swing state. Every other ad is a political advertisement of some sort. And every newscast is about one of four people coming to visit...or will be visiting soon.
I can't even imagine what it's like in a swing state. It already feels bad enough with just the ads for the two adjacent congressional districts.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 14, 2020, 03:21:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2020, 02:38:17 PM
One thing I've realized is that political articles and videos get me more agitated than I care to be–and that goes just as much for ones supporting my viewpoint as those contradicting it. Some of the guys I had just started to watch a lot of on YouTube because their thoughts really resonated with me, as it turns out, were the first to go.
I hate living in a swing state. Every other ad is a political advertisement of some sort. And every newscast is about one of four people coming to visit...or will be visiting soon.
Minnesota is being treated as a true swing state for the first time and boy do I feel the pain. Both candidates will be here this week and I'm pretty sure Trump or Pence has been here weekly for the last month-plus.
I feel conflicted about the swing states a little. On one hand (one big hand) it probably is super annoying. On the other hand, you have power. It seems as if the candidates are sucking up to you, but not me or others in the non-swing states. If you live in Indiana, New York or Tennessee you're nothing. But north or the Indiana Toll Road or the Cheddar Curtain and suddenly you're special.
It probably feels nothing like that if you're in a swing state though from what I gathered.
Meanwhile, it would be nice to have my opinion matter at all in Oklahoma. It's very hard not to feel like going to vote is an exercise in futility–Presidential, US Senate, and US House (in my district) outcomes are already preordained the moment the primaries concluded. I still vote anyway, since county and local positions matter, and state question outcomes are downright surprising sometimes, but I have to remind myself "hey, maybe your county will be different than normal this time" and pretend like that matters.
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 14, 2020, 09:15:36 PM
I feel conflicted about the swing states a little. On one hand (one big hand) it probably is super annoying. On the other hand, you have power. It seems as if the candidates are sucking up to you, but not me or others in the non-swing states. If you live in Indiana, New York or Tennessee you're nothing. But north or the Indiana Toll Road or the Cheddar Curtain and suddenly you're special.
It probably feels nothing like that if you're in a swing state though from what I gathered.
Nah. They don't give a fuck about us for the other 3 1/2 years of the cycle. It's not like they're trying to keep their standing here during their terms (which, ironically, would probably help their re-elections if they did do that).
Quote from: Rothman on September 14, 2020, 06:03:24 PM
If we didn't have such a significant number of fencesitters that change their minds day to day, I wonder if political ads and visits would diminish.
There's the centrist fence-sitters, who genuinely can see positives and negatives with either decision, and judging which sub-optimal choice will harm them the least yet give the smallest benefit to be proud of.
Frankly, there's a much larger (but loosely-held) bloc of non-voters of all types. Almost no amount of advertising is going to work; they're going to shoulder whatever change comes at them, or that they see the overarching political circus as nothing more than bad theater that grabs time, wastes money, demands out-sized attention, creates more lies than truth, and has more overall distortion than a Skinny Puppy album.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, then politics are the cheap carbohydrates.
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 14, 2020, 09:15:36 PM
I feel conflicted about the swing states a little. On one hand (one big hand) it probably is super annoying. On the other hand, you have power. It seems as if the candidates are sucking up to you, but not me or others in the non-swing states. If you live in Indiana, New York or Tennessee you're nothing. But north or the Indiana Toll Road or the Cheddar Curtain and suddenly you're special.
It probably feels nothing like that if you're in a swing state though from what I gathered.
The worst is when your network TV stations originate from a different state than where you live, and you get non-stop commercials for people not even on your ballot.
For 11 years I lived just across the Ohio River from Louisville, and had to endure endless commercials for Kentucky governor and senate races. Now I live just a few miles from Chicago. Last year was 24/7 Illinois governor commercials. This year, with the Presidential race being non-competitive in Illinois, there are continuous commercials for and against a ballot proposal to amend the state constitution to allow different income tax rates based on income.
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 14, 2020, 09:15:36 PM
I feel conflicted about the swing states a little. On one hand (one big hand) it probably is super annoying. On the other hand, you have power. It seems as if the candidates are sucking up to you, but not me or others in the non-swing states. If you live in Indiana, New York or Tennessee you're nothing. But north or the Indiana Toll Road or the Cheddar Curtain and suddenly you're special.
It probably feels nothing like that if you're in a swing state though from what I gathered.
No, I have no power outside of my one vote. It's a constant attempt at manipulation.
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
Quote from: webny99 on September 14, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
On a completely different topic, it kind of feels like this entire year since March has been basically a single Covid season, and now fall is coming and 3/4 of the year has undeniably slipped away. The transition from summer to fall is always the season change I notice most. It tends to mess with my emotions, and I can't help but think that's going to be the case this year more than ever. I'm just so not ready for the end of long summer evenings and nice weather.
The weather change from summer to autumn always brings good feelings for me. It was that time of year that I first fell in love. Even though I haven't been in a relationship with that person for two decades, even though I've been happily married to someone else for the last 14 years, there's still a subconscious connection in my mind between the feel of the air and those good feelings from the distant past.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 14, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
On a completely different topic, it kind of feels like this entire year since March has been basically a single Covid season, and now fall is coming and 3/4 of the year has undeniably slipped away. The transition from summer to fall is always the season change I notice most. It tends to mess with my emotions, and I can't help but think that's going to be the case this year more than ever. I'm just so not ready for the end of long summer evenings and nice weather.
The weather change from summer to autumn always brings good feelings for me. It was that time of year that I first fell in love. Even though I haven't been in a relationship with that person for two decades, even though I've been happily married to someone else for the last 14 years, there's still a subconscious connection in my mind between the feel of the air and those good feelings from the distant past.
I love the cool (but not cold) weather, and overall, I really like late summer/early fall and the delicious feeling of fall being in the air. But this year, it feels different. I think part of it is that last fall was the last time that we had normal times
and nice weather at once, and precisely
because I enjoy this time of year, I'm remembering the good old times more than ever. I wish that didn't make me feel more sad than happy, but it has, especially in the last week or two.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
Getting the shaft is having to listen to this sh*t for months and months.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The biggest problem with the electoral college is that it's based on the size of the House of Representatives, which hasn't grown in size as the population of the country has.
In 1790, the smallest state had about 1.5 times the relative electoral power of the largest state. Today, the smallest state has over 3 times the relative electoral power of the largest state.
While eliminating the electoral college would completely strip power from the smaller states, not adjusting the size of the House of Representatives has given them too much power. I know there is a physical building with capacity limits, but we've got to figure out a way to have a larger legislative body.
This pandemic has certainly had an impact on me.
One of the most striking differences for me personally is that I now have much more of an appreciation for sunlight and the outdoors. As a real young child I was outdoors quite often, but for the past several years increasingly stayed inside. As the pandemic has worsened my depression and other mental illnesses, I had a realization that I need to get outside much more. I was in desperate need of sunshine and natural endorphins. I only go out into the backyard, as I am minimizing physical contact so much as to not even go walking around the neighborhood, but starting in the past month, many days I have gone out and sat on the back patio, sometimes for hours. I have listened to music, drawn roads in my notebooks, read, and even worked on some online college assignments on my phone. It was desperately needed and I will never take the sunshine for granted again.
I have also been reflecting on my own mortality, and I echo thoughts of being reminded of how we are all on borrowed time and tomorrow isn't guaranteed. I don't know how well I would fare with this virus if I contract it, given that my physical health has been going downhill, especially in the past year. This is a nasty virus that has even put young people in critical condition (or death), so I must be prepared for anything and enjoy each day. My grandfather also passed away this past Spring and was in the hospital when things started getting really serious here in the United States (March), which also served as a reminder of mortality, especially since he was the first of my grandparents to pass away (the other three still living).
During the pandemic, one of the things I have missed the most is family gatherings. I can't wait until things get back to normal, because I have missed that very greatly. I have also missed being able to see friends, although I have probably fared better than average, since I am an introvert and never did socialize a whole lot. Even online I have probably been more withdrawn than I should be, and I have not been keeping in touch with my friends enough.
My mental health has definitely taken a hit since the start of the pandemic. As a matter of fact I would even say this is the worst some of my mental illnesses have been in three years (the first half of 2017 was the lowest low). But at the same time this has forced me to be healthier and go outside more, as I am desperate for natural remedies that I should have been doing already. I have to keep looking up, but this pandemic has certainly been a melancholy time, and I ache for the day when it will all be over.
I had taken a lot of things for granted before the pandemic. I took for granted that a relatively normal status quo, or at least one we had been used to for a long time, could so quickly change and the whole world could be in such a dire, unprecedented situation. I knew about pandemics in the past such as the Plague and the 1918 Flu, but I guess there was a part of me thinking "surely nothing like that will happen again anytime soon." I have obviously been proven mistaken, and this is the worst pandemic we have endured in a century. This is certainly a year for the history books, and one that I never could have predicted. Back at New Years, I had high hopes for this year, as well as the ensuing decade, but I have been disappointed at how it has started, and it was certainly something I never could have predicted.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 11:15:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2020, 10:07:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2020, 08:28:32 PM
-My sense of time is completely warped. What even is a week anymore? What even is a weekend anymore? One just blends into the next.
Definitely. Plus time just flies by now - it's very hard to believe it's already September.
Yeah, it's weird. March feels simultaneously like just a couple minutes ago but also several decades ago.
One one hand, not much happens/changes from day to day in this stay-at-home era, but on the other hand, it's been a very news-heavy year, and keeping up seems to consume a bit more mental energy when you're not interacting with other people or "in the real world" as much as usual.
You hit the nail right on the head. March does indeed paradoxically feel like just yesterday but forever ago at the same time. Time certainly feels very distorted, and it feels as if we are losing months to this pandemic - we'll never get back a "normal" 2020, these months are defined by times of hardship, isolation, and significant events, and they are extremely unusual. We have lost 2020, but perhaps, as someone noted upthread, we can learn something from these experiences and make necessary changes and improvements. I can only hope that 2021 will be a better year, but as this year has shown, anything can happen and history can be very unpredictable.
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2020, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 14, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
On a completely different topic, it kind of feels like this entire year since March has been basically a single Covid season, and now fall is coming and 3/4 of the year has undeniably slipped away. The transition from summer to fall is always the season change I notice most. It tends to mess with my emotions, and I can't help but think that's going to be the case this year more than ever. I'm just so not ready for the end of long summer evenings and nice weather.
The weather change from summer to autumn always brings good feelings for me. It was that time of year that I first fell in love. Even though I haven't been in a relationship with that person for two decades, even though I've been happily married to someone else for the last 14 years, there's still a subconscious connection in my mind between the feel of the air and those good feelings from the distant past.
I love the cool (but not cold) weather, and overall, I really like late summer/early fall and the delicious feeling of fall being in the air. But this year, it feels different. I think part of it is that last fall was the last time that we had normal times and nice weather at once, and precisely because I enjoy this time of year, I'm remembering the good old times more than ever. I wish that didn't make me feel more sad than happy, but it has, especially in the last week or two.
Due to a recently developing physical health problem, I now cannot handle the cold anymore. Which means that I highly enjoy sitting out in the heat, something I wasn't nearly as fond of in the past. I am utilizing the hot temperatures of the summer before it disappears, and I fear I may not be able to go outside as much once it starts getting colder. For that reason, I am lamenting summer coming to a close, as much as I love Fall (which contains my birthday as well), and I can definitely understand the melancholy feelings of the currently ensuing change of seasons.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, they would focus on areas that can draw many people. While these are typically urban areas, it has nothing to do with the size of the state. There would be events in Rhode Island because it's a very dense area where a single event can reach tens of thousands of people.
They would still focus on swing states a bit (although at a much lower level) because of trying to help Senate candidates.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 10:43:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
Getting the shaft is having to listen to this sh*t for months and months.
Years ago, I remember a pundit saying something like "the election comes down to how well you do in the same 10-12 states". So the Dakotas, Rhode Island, and Hawaii aren't a big enough prize, while California and Alabama are going to be very solidly one way to not bother for long stretches of a candidate's time. Then there's the Favorite Son states, though that's likely to be a non-issue this time around.
Wisconsin (like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, et al) has been one of those places for a while now.
There was a move a few years ago to seriously move up the Wisconsin primary. The general reasoning is because candidates would pay attention more if it were early in the primary season.
Why would anyone want that? I feel bad for the poor Iowans who have to deal with these bozos showing up at events around the state for two years.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 10:57:21 AM
The biggest problem with the electoral college is that it's based on the size of the House of Representatives, which hasn't grown in size as the population of the country has.
In 1790, the smallest state had about 1.5 times the relative electoral power of the largest state. Today, the smallest state has over 3 times the relative electoral power of the largest state.
While eliminating the electoral college would completely strip power from the smaller states, not adjusting the size of the House of Representatives has given them too much power. I know there is a physical building with capacity limits, but we've got to figure out a way to have a larger legislative body.
The comparison will vary, of course, depending on whether you're counting (a) total population, (b) total number of people legally eligible to vote, or (c) total number of registered voters. While women, minorities, and non-landowners have at different times won the right to vote, there are still large populations of people who aren't allowed to vote–children, foreign residents, et al.
Out of curiosity, I compared the relative weight of electoral votes in the 1796 election. The results are shown below. Please let me know if I messed up the math.
Based on total state population, using 1790 census dataA Rhode Island elector's vote was worth 2.07 times as much as a Virginia elector's vote.
(https://i.imgur.com/AWkM1J2.png)
Based on total state population, using 1800 census dataA Rhode Island elector's vote was worth 3.20 times as much as a Kentucky elector's vote.
(https://i.imgur.com/3SJAQ2g.png)
Based on state population of free white males over age 16, using 1790 census dataA Georgia elector's vote was worth 2.29 times as much as a Massachusetts elector's vote.
(https://i.imgur.com/sPl8C9L.png)
Based on state population of free white males over age 16, using 1800 census dataA Delaware elector's vote was worth 2.89 times as much as a New York elector's vote.
(https://i.imgur.com/IbPb5ct.png)
From reading people's posts on here, I think I'm probably either more fortunate or less frightened than a lot of people.
1. I've never been out of work. I worked at home for several weeks, but I've been back in the office for months now. (My wife lost some potential income because she has a home daycare and all the parents were financially affected in some way. One of them is just now getting back to work.)
2. Most of my friends are from church. Our small group resumed meeting at home before in-person worship services did. Corporate worship has been going on for a couple of months now, I think. Even Sunday school for the kids resumed this week, although my wife and I haven't decided yet if we're going to send our kids there yet.
3. Even while I was working from home, I took a walk during my lunch break, plus our family takes an evening walk every so often. My outdoor time hasn't been affected at all, except in a positive way.
4. While church services were on hold, our eldest son was tasked by the youth pastor with leading our family in weekly Bible study. When that wrapped up, our family decided we didn't want to stop. We have therefore started daily family Bible study between dinner and bedtime (unless schedules won't allow), and that's been awesome. We just finished our 51st session last night.
5. Nobody I personally know who has gotten COVID has had their health negatively affected. A couple of people I know second-hand have had a harder time, but no one I've personally met.
6. My sister and her husband have been down to visit from Iowa three times since this began, and we still see my parents regularly.
7. Our children are home-schooled, so we haven't had to deal with online classrooms and all that jazz. School in our house is completely normal. (I did have to help my parents, who are both teachers, figure out how to record their sessions with the tools provided by the school, but that just took a couple of hours one evening.)
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The small states actually have disproportionate power in the USSenate and Electoral College compared to the big states. OTOH, I agree and the Founding Fathers were so correct here, if it was a straight popular vote - 'Flyover Country' would be just that to the campaigns and those who are elected, the small states would be completely ignored and trampled upon by the big states and big-city elites. With the USSenate and Electoral College, the Wyomings, Vermonts, North Dakotas, Alaskas, etc, have to be a part of the decision making process and paid attention to, just like the Californias, New Yorks, Floridas, Pennsylvanias and Michigans are.
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
:-o
Mike
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, they would focus on areas that can draw many people. While these are typically urban areas, it has nothing to do with the size of the state. There would be events in Rhode Island because it's a very dense area where a single event can reach tens of thousands of people.
They would still focus on swing states a bit (although at a much lower level) because of trying to help Senate candidates.
I'm not trying to make a political statement here, but IF Donald Trump wins in November, it will likely be the sixth time that the candidate losing the popular vote won the Presidency.
However, it will be the third time in the last six elections, all benefiting one party over another.
I'm not sure if that's what the founders intended (I would argue they had zero intentions of creating anything remotely similar to what we see today), but I'm not sure it is healthy. Although it isn't as unhealthy as gerrymandering, which I think is the worst of our political problems.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The small states actually have disproportionate power in the USSenate and Electoral College compared to the big states. OTOH, I agree and the Founding Fathers were so correct here, if it was a straight popular vote - 'Flyover Country' would be just that to the campaigns and those who are elected, the small states would be completely ignored and trampled upon by the big states and big-city elites. With the USSenate and Electoral College, the Wyomings, Vermonts, North Dakotas, Alaskas, etc, have to be a part of the decision making process and paid attention to, just like the Californias, New Yorks, Floridas, Pennsylvanias and Michigans are.
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
:-o
Mike
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The small states actually have disproportionate power in the USSenate and Electoral College compared to the big states. OTOH, I agree and the Founding Fathers were so correct here, if it was a straight popular vote - 'Flyover Country' would be just that to the campaigns and those who are elected, the small states would be completely ignored and trampled upon by the big states and big-city elites. With the USSenate and Electoral College, the Wyomings, Vermonts, North Dakotas, Alaskas, etc, have to be a part of the decision making process and paid attention to, just like the Californias, New Yorks, Floridas, Pennsylvanias and Michigans are.
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
:-o
Mike
Without the Electoral College, those states would still get attention. Montana and Iowa have competitive Senate races right now, and Alaska, New Hampshire, and Kansas slightly competitive ones.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Counter-counterpoint: If an area has only 20% of the population, does that necessarily mean its interests are only 20% as important to that of the union as a whole?
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Counter-counterpoint: If an area has only 20% of the population, does that necessarily mean its interests are only 20% as important to that of the union as a whole?
I mean, if those "interests" are measured by the number of people affected by them, then the answer is yes. And I don't know how else you would measure.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Counter-counterpoint: If an area has only 20% of the population, does that necessarily mean its interests are only 20% as important to that of the union as a whole?
Yes. The only reason I see to give some areas greater representation is if one section has more than 50% (e.g. England is more than half of the UK, but they give the other three more weight so that England can't dictate what Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do without them having any say). This does not apply in the US.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
A national recount would be much more challenging, but also much less likely, since there are many states that might be close enough for a recount. Doesn't that roughly cancel out? I don't think the national popular vote has ever been that close to where every single vote would need to be recounted.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Counter-counterpoint: If an area has only 20% of the population, does that necessarily mean its interests are only 20% as important to that of the union as a whole?
I mean, if those "interests" are measured by the number of people affected by them, then the answer is yes. And I don't know how else you would measure.
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 03:53:49 PM
Yes. The only reason I see to give some areas greater representation is if one section has more than 50% (e.g. England is more than half of the UK, but they give the other three more weight so that England can't dictate what Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do without them having any say). This does not apply in the US.
What I'm getting at specifically is that agriculture tends to be a low-population industry, yet what happens in agriculture has great effect on the nation as a whole. Perhaps its national importance is disproportionate to the population of those regions.
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2020, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
A national recount would be much more challenging, but also much less likely, since there are many states that might be close enough for a recount. Doesn't that roughly cancel out? I don't think the national popular vote has ever been that close to where every single vote would need to be recounted.
1960: 0.17%
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:57:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Counter-counterpoint: If an area has only 20% of the population, does that necessarily mean its interests are only 20% as important to that of the union as a whole?
I mean, if those "interests" are measured by the number of people affected by them, then the answer is yes. And I don't know how else you would measure.
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 03:53:49 PM
Yes. The only reason I see to give some areas greater representation is if one section has more than 50% (e.g. England is more than half of the UK, but they give the other three more weight so that England can't dictate what Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do without them having any say). This does not apply in the US.
What I'm getting at specifically is that agriculture tends to be a low-population industry, yet what happens in agriculture has great effect on the nation as a whole. Perhaps its national importance is disproportionate to the population of those regions.
It actually isn't. Agriculture only has a 5% impact on the GDP.
We over-romaticize agriculture and it's impact to the country. It's not much of an economic engine.
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-contribution-to-agricultural-gdp-at-record-low
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 03:43:50 PM
Without the Electoral College, those states would still get attention. Montana and Iowa have competitive Senate races right now, and Alaska, New Hampshire, and Kansas slightly competitive ones.
I was including the USSenate in that discussion as without the equal per-state representation in that house of congress, the little states would be completely SOL. It was part of the Great Compromise that made the USA Constitution possible.
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:59:51 PM
Agriculture only has a 5% impact on the GDP.
We over-romaticize agriculture and it's impact to the country. It's not much of an economic engine.
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-contribution-to-agricultural-gdp-at-record-low
I wasn't really referring to GDP, nor was I actually suggesting that ag
is disproportionately important (rather than it's theoretically possible). I'd say that certain region-specific things are fundamental to society in a way not measured by GDP.
Just as one example, if you value ethanol fuel, then it might be a bad idea to give the shaft to the people who grow the corn.
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2020, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
A national recount would be much more challenging, but also much less likely, since there are many states that might be close enough for a recount. Doesn't that roughly cancel out? I don't think the national popular vote has ever been that close to where every single vote would need to be recounted.
Every vote would have to be recounted if they counted equally in the overall election.
With the Electoral College, only one or two states would have to be recounted if they were that close and the outcome of that state's or those states' popular votes could change the outcome.
Mike
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 03:12:36 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 10:57:21 AM
The biggest problem with the electoral college is that it's based on the size of the House of Representatives, which hasn't grown in size as the population of the country has.
In 1790, the smallest state had about 1.5 times the relative electoral power of the largest state. Today, the smallest state has over 3 times the relative electoral power of the largest state.
While eliminating the electoral college would completely strip power from the smaller states, not adjusting the size of the House of Representatives has given them too much power. I know there is a physical building with capacity limits, but we've got to figure out a way to have a larger legislative body.
The comparison will vary, of course, depending on whether you're counting (a) total population, (b) total number of people legally eligible to vote, or (c) total number of registered voters. While women, minorities, and non-landowners have at different times won the right to vote, there are still large populations of people who aren't allowed to vote–children, foreign residents, et al.
Remember that pre-1864, slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, so that is the formula I used. I can't find the table I used for my calculations, but I have my notes and Delaware's 1796 electoral power was 1.6 times that of Virginia, and in 2020 Wyoming's electoral power is 3.6 times that of California.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The small states actually have disproportionate power in the USSenate and Electoral College compared to the big states. OTOH, I agree and the Founding Fathers were so correct here, if it was a straight popular vote - 'Flyover Country' would be just that to the campaigns and those who are elected, the small states would be completely ignored and trampled upon by the big states and big-city elites. With the USSenate and Electoral College, the Wyomings, Vermonts, North Dakotas, Alaskas, etc, have to be a part of the decision making process and paid attention to, just like the Californias, New Yorks, Floridas, Pennsylvanias and Michigans are.
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
:-o
Mike
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 03:37:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 15, 2020, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:48:23 AM
With the electoral college, we have swing states. With swing states, candidates focus their energy on those swing states at the expense of all others.
Without the electoral college, we would have no swing states. Without them, candidates would focus their energy on the most populous states at the expense of all others.
Which system seems better to you probably depends in part on what state you happen to live in. (Although states like Nebraska and Montana would probably get the shaft either way.)
The small states actually have disproportionate power in the USSenate and Electoral College compared to the big states. OTOH, I agree and the Founding Fathers were so correct here, if it was a straight popular vote - 'Flyover Country' would be just that to the campaigns and those who are elected, the small states would be completely ignored and trampled upon by the big states and big-city elites. With the USSenate and Electoral College, the Wyomings, Vermonts, North Dakotas, Alaskas, etc, have to be a part of the decision making process and paid attention to, just like the Californias, New Yorks, Floridas, Pennsylvanias and Michigans are.
- Another *MASSIVE* reason to have the Electoral College and, IMHO, a critically important one - one word here: 'Recount'.
:-o
Mike
Counterpoint: why should flyover country's people votes count more? They have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the election. Sure, elections would focus on large metropolitan areas versus rural areas, but since 80% of the people live in urban areas, doesn't that make sense?
The smaller states would never have agreed to form a country were it not for the electoral college. It ensures that all areas of the country have influence and not just the most populated areas.
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 04:45:21 PM
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
This is what I think people are failing to understand about abolishing the Electoral College. It's not that a presidential candidate would cater to the interests of rural America by a factor of 20% because its population is only 20% of the total. It's that a presidential candidate would not cater to the interests of rural America
at all because its population is only 20% of the total. Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 04:45:21 PM
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
This is what I think people are failing to understand about abolishing the Electoral College. It's not that a presidential candidate would cater to the interests of rural America by a factor of 20% because its population is only 20% of the total. It's that a presidential candidate would not cater to the interests of rural America at all because its population is only 20% of the total. Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
So is it better than a presidential candidate caters to the interests of rural America by 40% when its population is only 20%? Why is giving any part of the country a disproportionate share of interests and power a good idea?
I mean, I know full well why the Electoral College is in place. And I am not advocating for its abolishment by any means. I just think the reasons why people think its a good idea make a lot of sense to me.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 04:45:21 PM
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
This is what I think people are failing to understand about abolishing the Electoral College. It's not that a presidential candidate would cater to the interests of rural America by a factor of 20% because its population is only 20% of the total. It's that a presidential candidate would not cater to the interests of rural America at all because its population is only 20% of the total. Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
So is it better than a presidential candidate caters to the interests of rural America by 40% when its population is only 20%? Why is giving any part of the country a disproportionate share of interests and power a good idea?
I mean, I know full well why the Electoral College is in place. And I am not advocating for its abolishment by any means. I just think the reasons why people think its a good idea make a lot of sense to me.
Because it sucked being a Bills fan during the Brady/Belichick era because no matter if you were good or bad, they won the division.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 04:45:21 PM
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
This is what I think people are failing to understand about abolishing the Electoral College. It's not that a presidential candidate would cater to the interests of rural America by a factor of 20% because its population is only 20% of the total. It's that a presidential candidate would not cater to the interests of rural America at all because its population is only 20% of the total. Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
So is it better than a presidential candidate caters to the interests of rural America by 40% when its population is only 20%? Why is giving any part of the country a disproportionate share of interests and power a good idea?
I mean, I know full well why the Electoral College is in place. And I am not advocating for its abolishment by any means. I just think the reasons why people think its a good idea make a lot of sense to me.
There's no perfect system, and one that gives disproportionate power to the minority is preferred to one that gives it to the majority.
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
Of course not, it is an election year after all.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
Isn't that the case now, though? It's pretty hard to argue that a vote in Upstate New York or rural California matters at all.
Quote from: Brandon on September 15, 2020, 10:02:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
Of course not, it is an election year after all.
Yes, but of all the things that I can think of that can sap the joy out of life politics would be very high on that list. I guess that sometimes I wonder what people really get out of debating anything political? It seems like politics is so important to so many and yet I'm vexed as to why. It sounds like most people already know how they will vote, so why not just run with that and maybe find something else to focus amid this pandemic stuff? Maybe it would be a gateway to something far less depressing.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 07:37:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 15, 2020, 04:45:21 PM
The problem with a straight popular vote is that 75-80% of the population would have 100% of the power.
This is what I think people are failing to understand about abolishing the Electoral College. It's not that a presidential candidate would cater to the interests of rural America by a factor of 20% because its population is only 20% of the total. It's that a presidential candidate would not cater to the interests of rural America at all because its population is only 20% of the total. Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
So is it better than a presidential candidate caters to the interests of rural America by 40% when its population is only 20%? Why is giving any part of the country a disproportionate share of interests and power a good idea?
I mean, I know full well why the Electoral College is in place. And I am not advocating for its abolishment by any means. I just think the reasons why people think its a good idea make a lot of sense to me.
There's no perfect system, and one that gives disproportionate power to the minority is preferred to one that gives it to the majority.
Kind of reminds me about something I learned in economics in school today regarding public goods. With a majority vote, it is possible to get outcomes that aren't necessarily the best or the most efficient.
Let's say a small town in SE Arkansas has basically died so that only 3 people live in the entire ghost town. The state of Arkansas is wondering whether to build Interstate 69 through the town or to build a bypass. So the state holds a vote among the 3 citizens to see what they want to do. Person A doesn't really like the idea of the highway because he's elderly and wants to retire in peace, so he wants the bypass. Person B is a truck driver and would love to see 69 extended through SE Arkansas, creating economic value, but like person A, he believes the highway should bypass his town.
On the other hand, Person C, the general store owner, recognizes the potential economic growth the highway would bring for her store and the town if the highway was built through the town. However, she is outvoted 2-1 by the others, so the bypass is built, even though in the long run if the highway were run thru the town, Person C's general store could have grown and drivers could have saved 1 or 2 miles on their trip.
In this case, the majority got what they wanted, but they could've had so much more if the minority got what she wanted. Please note this is not saying majority voting is bad, but that extreme caution should be taken when voting takes place so the majority doesn't vote for unreasonable things, just as the Founding Fathers believed.
(P.S. I made up the story to make my point relevant to the forum, but the principles behind the story are not. Look up public choice theory if you want more information on this idea)
I forget who said it (Will Rogers?) "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for lunch".
:-o
Sage advice, really. I am also familiar with the term 'Tyranny of the majority'.
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 05:24:19 PM
I mean, I know full well why the Electoral College is in place. And I am not advocating for its abolishment by any means. I just think the reasons why people think its a good idea make a lot of sense to me.
*phew*
For a minute there, I thought you were perplexed. :)
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2020, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
Isn't that the case now, though? It's pretty hard to argue that a vote in Upstate New York or rural California matters at all.
Depends. With only two candidates, sure. But what if there were three candidates, two of them focused on NYC at the expense of upstate New York, while the third focused on upstate. It might be within the realm of possibility that, if the two NYC candidates were neck and neck, the upstate-focused candidate might actually squeak out more than 33% of the vote and win a majority.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 09:22:02 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2020, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Huge swaths of the nation would see their residents' votes cease to matter at all.
Isn't that the case now, though? It's pretty hard to argue that a vote in Upstate New York or rural California matters at all.
Depends. With only two candidates, sure. But what if there were three candidates, two of them focused on NYC at the expense of upstate New York, while the third focused on upstate. It might be within the realm of possibility that, if the two NYC candidates were neck and neck, the upstate-focused candidate might actually squeak out more than 33% of the vote and win a majority.
That's a lot of pretty big if's.
-Two presidential candidates being neck and neck in NYC is highly unlikely.
-Three viable candidates, period, is unlikely in our current two-party system.
-Even if there was a strong third candidate that could win upstate, it would probably be an Evan McMullin in Utah in 2016 type situation, where that candidate has a shot at winning the state, but not the actual election.
That's part of the trade-off of the electoral college: sure, you can give more say to the smaller/rural states, but it's at the expense of rural voters in primarily urban states.
The winner-take-all effect of the Electoral College is greater than the small state importance boost effect.
So...bring back the VP being the second-place finisher? :D
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2020, 12:18:31 PM
The winner-take-all effect of the Electoral College is greater than the small state importance boost effect.
Exactly. I thought it was hilarious when someone claimed the Electoral College makes rural areas matter, and then proceeded to list a bunch of safe states (like Wyoming and the Dakotas) that don't matter at all in Presidential elections. Meanwhile, the swingiest swing state (and therefore the most important in the whole election) is the third largest (fourth in the Electoral College until redistricting happens after the 2020 Census).
Quote from: Rothman on September 16, 2020, 12:39:34 PM
So...bring back the VP being the second-place finisher? :D
I'm trying to decide if that would be awesome or awful.
Quote from: vdeane on September 16, 2020, 01:00:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2020, 12:18:31 PM
The winner-take-all effect of the Electoral College is greater than the small state importance boost effect.
Exactly. I thought it was hilarious when someone claimed the Electoral College makes rural areas matter, and then proceeded to list a bunch of safe states (like Wyoming and the Dakotas) that don't matter at all in Presidential elections. Meanwhile, the swingiest swing state (and therefore the most important in the whole election) is the third largest (fourth in the Electoral College until redistricting happens after the 2020 Census).
Rural states matter more collectively in the EC, if not individually.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
If anything, it's hardened and reinforced my interest and my beliefs. And it's not a partisan thing, either. I was being critical of Mike DeWine (Ohio's Republican governor) before I was being critical of Andy Beshear (Kentucky's Democrat governor), because DeWine typically issued his dictatorial edicts a day or two before Beshear would issue the same edicts. I've long said that I'm not partisan; I'm ideological. I expect more from members of my own party than I do members of the other party. Years ago, I did one of those Facebook "your most-used word" things and
RINO came up as one of the leaders.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 11:31:03 PM
I guess that sometimes I wonder what people really get out of debating anything political? It seems like politics is so important to so many and yet I'm vexed as to why.
I can only speak for myself, but in my case, my ideological beliefs are a huge portion of who I am as a person. My ideological principles are pretty much inseparable from my religious beliefs; indeed, my ideology is a result of my Christianity. I've never been good at spreading the Gospel by word or by direct action. I have to let my conduct and my comments on other things speak for me. I realize that most people already have their minds made up, and there aren't any real undecideds out there, but given my training as a journalist to pursue facts, it's hard for me to let untruths go unanswered. That's why the vast majority of my comments on social media are on current events, and not what I'm eating for lunch (or lying about how great my life is in a Styxian "Grand Illusion" attempt to impress others.)
I think there are real undecideds out there, given fluctuations in polls. I imagine a few million idiots swaying with every headline: "Oh, that sounds good...But, hey, that sounds good, too!...Oh, look! Shiny!"
Quote from: Rothman on September 16, 2020, 01:30:04 PM
I think there are real undecideds out there, given fluctuations in polls. I imagine a few million idiots swaying with every headline: "Oh, that sounds good...But, hey, that sounds good, too!...Oh, look! Shiny!"
I have to imagine that a lot of non-voters are undecided. Perhaps they don't vote because they're on the fence or don't care who wins.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 02:01:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 16, 2020, 01:30:04 PM
I think there are real undecideds out there, given fluctuations in polls. I imagine a few million idiots swaying with every headline: "Oh, that sounds good...But, hey, that sounds good, too!...Oh, look! Shiny!"
I have to imagine that a lot of non-voters are undecided. Perhaps they don't vote because they're on the fence or don't care who wins.
Some just don't bother, especially when it's an hour line or more for something that probably won't make a difference, or even if there's no line, they still have to drive to the polling place (pre-2020) for something that probably won't matter. (Of course, a single vote can matter – see the 2017 state-level elections in Virginia.)
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
If anything, it's hardened and reinforced my interest and my beliefs. And it's not a partisan thing, either. I was being critical of Mike DeWine (Ohio's Republican governor) before I was being critical of Andy Beshear (Kentucky's Democrat governor), because DeWine typically issued his dictatorial edicts a day or two before Beshear would issue the same edicts. I've long said that I'm not partisan; I'm ideological. I expect more from members of my own party than I do members of the other party. Years ago, I did one of those Facebook "your most-used word" things and RINO came up as one of the leaders.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 11:31:03 PM
I guess that sometimes I wonder what people really get out of debating anything political? It seems like politics is so important to so many and yet I'm vexed as to why.
I can only speak for myself, but in my case, my ideological beliefs are a huge portion of who I am as a person. My ideological principles are pretty much inseparable from my religious beliefs; indeed, my ideology is a result of my Christianity. I've never been good at spreading the Gospel by word or by direct action. I have to let my conduct and my comments on other things speak for me. I realize that most people already have their minds made up, and there aren't any real undecideds out there, but given my training as a journalist to pursue facts, it's hard for me to let untruths go unanswered. That's why the vast majority of my comments on social media are on current events, and not what I'm eating for lunch (or lying about how great my life is in a Styxian "Grand Illusion" attempt to impress others.)
See, for me it's been the opposite.
Already before the virus, I had begun to try and divorce my political opinions from my religious convictions. I had become more and more uncomfortable with the notion that Christians in other places and other times, by virtue of their politics, are/were somehow less Christian than I. Similarly, it didn't sit well with me to consider contemporary American brothers and sisters to be somehow lacking in their religious convictions by virtue of their politics.
Part of the process for me has been to try and understand
why people on the other side of the proverbial aisle think the way they do. I may be pro-life, but I've come to understand that other Christians are pro-choice not because they hate babies but because they love mothers. I may lean libertarian, but I've come to understand that other Christians want big government not because they disregard liberty but because they value social change. Et cetera.
With the coming of the virus, there have been opportunities for our differences to become visible, to be more out in the open–even among people who rarely discuss politics. Some people stay shuttered in their homes, while others travel on vacations seemingly more than ever. Some people never leave the house without a mask, while others disregard ordinances and policies requiring them. Some people are eager to get back to a normal routine, while others hesitate. This has caused me to appreciate that everyone I know has unique values, circumstances, beliefs, family concerns, and personalities–all of which bear on their behavior and political opinions. One thing that has encouraged me greatly in my home congregation is how gracious and accommodating everyone has been with each other's takes on the situation. To use masks as the most visible example: at church, I personally know people who never wear a mask even in the hallway, people who never take it off for four hours once they come in the front door even if there's nobody else around, and people who are still staying home. And yet I've never witnessed an argument or even a dirty look.
I hope I've been able to extend that same grace and understanding to the conversations we've had on this forum lately. Obviously I'm not a perfect person and I tend to ruffle feathers sometimes, but I hope it comes across none the less. And, by and large, I think most other people on the forum have been likewise understanding of other's opinions and beliefs. There have a been a few arguments here and there, but far fewer than one might expect. (Admittedly, a noticeable lack of comments by
NE2 calling people xenophobic tushy jesters has helped.) This has made our conversations less upsetting and therefore more productive.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 02:38:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 09:47:56 PM
So basically the pandemic hasn't affected a lot of people in regard to their interest in politics?
If anything, it's hardened and reinforced my interest and my beliefs. And it's not a partisan thing, either. I was being critical of Mike DeWine (Ohio's Republican governor) before I was being critical of Andy Beshear (Kentucky's Democrat governor), because DeWine typically issued his dictatorial edicts a day or two before Beshear would issue the same edicts. I've long said that I'm not partisan; I'm ideological. I expect more from members of my own party than I do members of the other party. Years ago, I did one of those Facebook "your most-used word" things and RINO came up as one of the leaders.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 11:31:03 PM
I guess that sometimes I wonder what people really get out of debating anything political? It seems like politics is so important to so many and yet I'm vexed as to why.
I can only speak for myself, but in my case, my ideological beliefs are a huge portion of who I am as a person. My ideological principles are pretty much inseparable from my religious beliefs; indeed, my ideology is a result of my Christianity. I've never been good at spreading the Gospel by word or by direct action. I have to let my conduct and my comments on other things speak for me. I realize that most people already have their minds made up, and there aren't any real undecideds out there, but given my training as a journalist to pursue facts, it's hard for me to let untruths go unanswered. That's why the vast majority of my comments on social media are on current events, and not what I'm eating for lunch (or lying about how great my life is in a Styxian "Grand Illusion" attempt to impress others.)
See, for me it's been the opposite.
Already before the virus, I had begun to try and divorce my political opinions from my religious convictions. I had become more and more uncomfortable with the notion that Christians in other places and other times, by virtue of their politics, are/were somehow less Christian than I. Similarly, it didn't sit well with me to consider contemporary American brothers and sisters to be somehow lacking in their religious convictions by virtue of their politics.
Part of the process for me has been to try and understand why people on the other side of the proverbial aisle think the way they do. I may be pro-life, but I've come to understand that other Christians are pro-choice not because they hate babies but because they love mothers. I may lean libertarian, but I've come to understand that other Christians want big government not because they disregard liberty but because they value social change. Et cetera.
With the coming of the virus, there have been opportunities for our differences to become visible, to be more out in the open–even among people who rarely discuss politics. Some people stay shuttered in their homes, while others travel on vacations seemingly more than ever. Some people never leave the house without a mask, while others disregard ordinances and policies requiring them. Some people are eager to get back to a normal routine, while others hesitate. This has caused me to appreciate that everyone I know has unique values, circumstances, beliefs, family concerns, and personalities–all of which bear on their behavior and political opinions. One thing that has encouraged me greatly in my home congregation is how gracious and accommodating everyone has been with each other's takes on the situation. To use masks as the most visible example: at church, I personally know people who never wear a mask even in the hallway, people who never take it off for four hours once they come in the front door even if there's nobody else around, and people who are still staying home. And yet I've never witnessed an argument or even a dirty look.
I hope I've been able to extend that same grace and understanding to the conversations we've had on this forum lately. Obviously I'm not a perfect person and I tend to ruffle feathers sometimes, but I hope it comes across none the less. And, by and large, I think most other people on the forum have been likewise understanding of other's opinions and beliefs. There have a been a few arguments here and there, but far fewer than one might expect. (Admittedly, a noticeable lack of comments by NE2 calling people xenophobic tushy jesters has helped.) This has made our conversations less upsetting and therefore more productive.
Differences in opinions on masks, and distancing, 100% agree. What I can't understand is how people have made the virus political. The virus wears neither a red tie, a blue tie nor a purple tie. I am not trying to make a political statement myself as I really don't care for it, but this was our time to really come together and accept everyone. I feel we failed, and it just shows humans enjoy fighting with other humans and killing other humans. It's really sad to me.
If anything positive comes from this mess, I really hope we learn how we really need to put aside our differences and either accept both sides to every story or just say it doesn't really matter that these people think differently than I do. I hope this is a lesson on what could have been if we just all got on the same page. I have witnessed what you have spoke of too, people are working together, but in small doses. It does tell me there is hope for us, but maybe not right now.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 16, 2020, 03:46:31 PM
What I can't understand is how people have made the virus political.
I can understand it to some degree, because mandates are the product of government mandating behavior. That's inherently political. That discussion has been hashed out on these boards before, and the thread ultimately got locked. So let's not go there.
But what never ceases to amaze me is how we're all supposed to be utterly shocked whenever some politician or another doesn't wear a mask. If Trump doesn't wear one, then we're all supposed to hate him for being a science denier. If Pelosi doesn't wear a mask, then we're all supposed to hate her for being a privileged hypocrite. Geez, who really cares? :rolleyes:
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 03:58:44 PM
But what never ceases to amaze me is how we're all supposed to be utterly shocked whenever some politician or another doesn't wear a mask. If Trump doesn't wear one, then we're all supposed to hate him for being a science denier. If Pelosi doesn't wear a mask, then we're all supposed to hate her for being a privileged hypocrite. Geez, who really cares? :rolleyes:
Out of hundreds of current politicians (435 in the House minus vacancies, 100 in the Senate, 50 governors, Trump and his cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court Justices), the two names you mentioned are in the top 5 of most important in-the-news politicians (the other three being Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Mitch McConnell, although Republicans like to mention Hillary Clinton a lot).
If this happened to Chris Pappas (NH-01, the closest competitive district to me), it probably wouldn't make the news at all, and even the people in his district would have no idea it happened.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 03:58:44 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 16, 2020, 03:46:31 PM
What I can't understand is how people have made the virus political.
I can understand it to some degree, because mandates are the product of government mandating behavior. That's inherently political. That discussion has been hashed out on these boards before, and the thread ultimately got locked. So let's not go there.
But what never ceases to amaze me is how we're all supposed to be utterly shocked whenever some politician or another doesn't wear a mask. If Trump doesn't wear one, then we're all supposed to hate him for being a science denier. If Pelosi doesn't wear a mask, then we're all supposed to hate her for being a privileged hypocrite. Geez, who really cares? :rolleyes:
An incumbent President has a better chance of being re-elected when the economy is strong in general, and when the stock market is up specifically, so any issue that impacts the market significantly becomes a political issue. Shutting down businesses sent the stock market tumbling, and regardless of what the medical facts were, the incumbent party was against that response because it was, or at least was perceived as, damaging to re-election chances.
Heh. Masks are required in our congregation. No mask means you get the boot.
And the vast majority of the congregation is more than conservative.
Political hijacking - let's calm it down everyone, then we'll open back up to the appropriate topic.