This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

If you had been reading my comments, you’d know I know the electoral college is unbalanced.

It being unbalanced is the whole reason it exists

To make sure the high populated states don’t always get what they want and give smaller populated states more voice

This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

This is a discussion about how likely one voter is to affect the election

You are trying to make it not about that

The question is, “Does someone voting in Wyoming have more “voting power” than someone in California?”

It’s like if I wanted Candidate A to win. Would it be better if I lived in Wyoming or California?

I’ve said before that someone in Wyoming has more EV per capita. “NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.”

My point is one voter swinging Wyoming and then Wyoming swinging the EC, is never going to happen before one voter swings California and California’s EVs just mattering like they always do.

Lower population does not automatically mean more “voting power”

That Pennsylvania, 19 EC 13m Pop., has more “voting power” than both California and Wyoming

Pennsylvania has 1/3 population of California. But 1/3 EC would be 17.5.

A single voter in Pennsylvania has higher chances of being the deciding vote than in California, and Pennsylvania gets more EV per capita.

19 EC is enough to realistically change the election. 3 EC is not.

That’s why Pennsylvania is a “swing state” and Wyoming is not.

One vote in wyoming weighs more than one vote in California

So you’re saying that a single voter in Wyoming voting for Candidate A means more than a single voter in California voting for Candidate A?

In order for any of Wyoming votes to even matter, the two candidates would have to be at 268-267 and need Wyoming to be the tie breaker. It would have to come down as a perfect swing state.

California’s 53 EV always matters. Harris had to win California to even have a chance at winning.

Neither candidate had to win Wyoming to win

Odds that California comes down to a 20m vs 20m tie or Wyoming coming down to a 250k vs 250k tie are basically the same.

Even if Wyoming was tied like that and 1 voter could make a difference. It would still have to be 268-267 EVs to even matter

TLDR:

Only 2 states to simplify things

Wyoming 3 EV

California 53 EV

56 EV total, 29 EV need to win

Wyoming still has more EV per capita

California wants Candidate B

Wyoming wants Candidate A

Who decides the election? (California)

If what you’re saying is that the smaller population with more EV per capita has more pull in an election, then Wyoming would actually have a shot at making Candidate A win by themselves.

California has 53/538 EV.

California controls 10% of the total EVs

Wyoming controls .06%

TLDR again:

As a voter, being able to effect 10% of the total EVs is more powerful than being able to effect .06%.

It wasn’t about how much the states electoral votes matter, but how much a single persons vote matters in the entire election.

How electoral votes matter is the whole point. If it was done by pure population they would have equal voting power. They do not have equal voting power because the electoral votes matter.

1 person in Wyoming makes more difference in how Wyoming election turns out. Less population, more influence.

There are 538 electoral votes divided over 50 states

Wyoming has 3

California has 54

Wyoming has 584k people

California has 39m people

In Wyoming each voters has 5.137E-6 electoral votes to cast

In California each voters has 8.98305085E−7 electoral votes to cast

Now winner takes all electoral votes aside. Someone in Wyoming is contributing more electoral votes to their candidate than someone in California.

This is what’s always argued when talking about voting power based on population

If the candidate needs 270 to win, if I am able to give more to a candidate with my vote, my vote is more powerful in a way.

There has been two elections decided by 3 electoral votes. 1876 Hayes and 1796 Adams. Total electoral votes at the time were 261 and 138, respectively. It would be equivalent to winning by 6 and 12 votes today with the 538 electoral votes. So while it was 3, those 3 votes meant a lot more back then when it was 3/261 or 3/138.

If 50.000 people in California changes their vote it hardly matters. If 50.000 people in wyoming do that, it heavily influences the outcome of who wyoming votes for.

Like I said earlier, yes, Wyoming voters have more influence on who wins their electoral votes and they have more electoral votes per person

California with 53 electoral votes is a 106 point swing. Taking 53 electoral votes from the winning candidate and giving it to the runner up would change the majority of all the elections.

Think of it this way:

2 states just California and Wyoming. California has 53 votes, Wyoming 3.

56 votes total. Need 29 votes to win.

Biggest issue the candidates are running on is spending money on beaches.

Candidate A: For spending

Candidate B: Against spending

California wants A, Wyoming wants B.

If what you’re saying is true, then Wyoming should have the most power in this election because each of their votes count more than a person in California.

584k deciding 3 electoral votes vs 39m deciding 53 electoral votes

Yet every single person in Wyoming could vote candidate B, and it’s still going to be up to California to decide

So would you want to be a voter in Wyoming or California?

California because your vote doesn’t matter in Wyoming. No matter who you vote for in Wyoming, California is going to decide. You want to be able to cast your vote in California to hopefully swing the state

If you gave those 584k Wyoming voters the chance to not cast their vote in Wyoming but instead cast their vote in California against the 39m, they would be wise to do it. Doesn’t matter where 3/56 electoral votes go, it matters much more where the 53/56 electoral votes go.

So yes, while each voter in California has less effect on the California electoral votes. California has more effect on the total electoral votes.

Being able to participate in a more important election is worth more than having more influence in an election that is next to meaningless.

Wyoming has the lowest population.

Makes sense why candidates spend all their time trying to get these powerful voters on their side. Those 3 electoral votes really makes it the most powerful swing state.

Someone in Wyoming has more electoral votes to their votes, yes. And I believe that is the point you’re making.

If everyone in Wyoming voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has basically the same chance of winning or losing.

If everyone in California voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has a lot better chance of winning.

It’s more powerful to be able to vote in something that actually matters than to vote in something that doesn’t.

You could just not count any votes in Wyoming and still call the overall winner 99.999% of the time. It would have to come down to 3 electoral votes tie breaker for their votes to even matter. Whereas every vote in California always matters.

Like in this last election. If Harris won every “swing state”. But Trump could have won California and he’d win the election.

Electoral college has It’s pros and cons but “The smaller the state’s population the more their vote counts.” Isn’t true.

It’s the middle size, “swing states”, that the voters have the most powerful.

You aren’t a drop in the bucket like California, but your state has enough electoral votes to actually swing things.

Disclaimer: I wrote this all for myself not to change your mind or argue. Helps if I write down my thoughts and I don’t see a problem sharing. Feel free to discuss if you like.

35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Vs.

41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Alice wins

Vs.

Carol wins

Say you have:

41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

29 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

If those 29 voters couldn’t vote Third-party they would vote Democratic. So when the Third-party candidate is knocked out, their votes should favor their second pick. Democratic wins 59-41.

If it was:

41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

29 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Which makes more since on why the 6 votes moved to Republican because Republican was their second choice.

Then Republicans win 70-30.

In America you’d have 4 basic senarios

25 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

25 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

In RCV, Third-party wins.

Let’s say this

30 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

20 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Third-party still wins

40 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

It would be a tie

45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

5 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

It would still be a tie

45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

5 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Republicans win

Let’s change it to this:

35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

35 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Vs.

41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

29 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Alice wins

Vs.

Alice wins

They couldn’t make their whole point if you just switched Alice and Carol. And it makes much more sense that someone with Alice second would change it to Alice first.

But when 29 votes still hold Alice as last, it does have some weight.

Something just seems off about it and it’s because they cherry picked a senario that would work for their point.

Alice > Carol > Bob

Alice > Bob > Carol

Bob > Alice > Carol

Bob > Carol > Alice

Carol > Alice > Bob

Carol > Bob > Alice

There are 6 ways to vote and they leave out half of them. Then they make Carol supporters favor Alice as their second choice.

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Carol eliminated, +10 Bob +20 Alice. Alice would win.

If 5 voters from Bob > Alice > Carol were moved to Alice > Bob > Carol

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

20 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

10 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Alice would win

What if everyone from Bob > Alice > Carol moved to vote for Alice > Bob > Carol

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

30 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

It would be a tie.

In bold are the three they selected:

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.

26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

14 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Alice 41

Bob 28

Carol 30

Bob is eliminated.

15 votes goes to Alice. 14 goes to Carol.

Alice still wins.

But they set it up like:

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.

26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Then when Bob is eliminated all 29 votes go to Carol.

Then they say “It’s unfair that Carol wins”. When in reality those 29 people would prefer Carol over Alice.

RCV might have some flaws but that article has some flaws.

I haven’t looked at the others. I might later.

Edit:Formatting

The whole Noah story arc proves that God would totally cause storms to cleanse the evil.

Doing it Thalnos’ style and only killing/moving? the bad people isn’t God’s style. He could do it, but “God snapped his fingers and all bad people were sent to Hell, the world instantly became a better place.” Doesn’t get you a New York bestseller.

You can remove the decimal then add it back at the end

15.50

Is

1500

Half would be 775

Or 7.75

Jake being bad at acting could have been a shtick

Like “Jake you’re famous now! We need you to do commercials!” Jake “But I can’t act!”

libertery mutual, a company that is referenced in the meme, even does this with a real actor that acts like he can’t act.

Jake from state farm was supposed to be a normal dude. Him not being an actor probably makes his delivery that much better

Replacing Jake with a professional actor seems wrong. It’s no longer “Jake”

That you can screw in without drilling a pilot hole like with some drywall anchors?

Drywall anchors? That’s got to be a solid stone wall. I don’t think you can use drywall anchors.

Well you could drill out large holes and fill with spackle, then insert the drywall anchors into those areas.

Yeah should work just fine

I just realized that El Paso is actually in MST. They must have hated it so bad not to stick with the rest of Texas. But whoever lives in the farthest point west but still in CST is being screwed. Same with EST.

Funny the section of Texas that is in MST is three tiny blocks, basically the same width as all of Michigan. Texas is big lol.

Michigan should probably move to CST

When I think of Colorado I think of it being way north. You could live in Colorado and be as north as someone living in Raleigh NC almost. That’s wild.

Yeah Colorado seems to appear to be all up to preference on the choices. It’s at the start of a time zone. People on the east lean towards permanent MDT, People on the west lean towards permanent MST.

Im guessing that you live towards the west side. Yet if most people around you seem to want it, then maybe you live on east side lol

Detroit is an interesting one.

If Detroit kept DST permanent, the sun would basically set after 6pm every day.

However. Like you said, no one wants to wait until the 9am for the sun to rise.

Abolishing DST could be beneficial for Detroit. Not as many days where the sun sets after 6. But more days where it rises before 7.

The current system is bad for Detroit. It should either abolish it or keep it permanent.

Detroit night owls would want to keep it, early birds would want to abolish it.

Detroit is like El Paso TX. Where the current system is clearly bad.

Maine is the opposite. The current system is “best” and the birds and owls fight.

I live in Charlotte NC. I’ve always been for DST. Permanent DST means basically 365 days where the sun sets after 6pm. While getting basically the same number of days where the sun rises before 7am. I’m not an early riser, so as long as it’s up by 8/9am most of the time it’s fine with me.

Arizona has it right. What I want in Charlotte shouldn’t matter to what you want in Detroit.

You hate DST, I like it. You should be able to get rid of it, I should be able to keep it.

Different places are affected by it much more or less. People are owls or birds. You can’t make everybody happy with one option.

Maine is so far away from everything else it could be in it’s own time zone. That’s why it is a strange case.

Never really thought about Detroit being almost directly north of Charlotte.

Red lines are current time zones. Red circle is El Paso. Blue lines are if you equally cut US into 4 time zones.

Detroit is to the right of the red line. It has 3 boxes to reach the beginning of the time zone which is just to the right of Maine. (Sorry didn’t draw it)

El Paso being in the circle makes it 3 boxes to reach the beginning of time zone just like Detroit and why it is in the similar situation with DST.

The right two time zones are large time zones. The left two are only 2 boxes wide.

Maine should be in a separate time zone than Detroit

Detroit should probably move to CST. Then, argue about daylight savings time in the summer to be EST (Not EDT)

Sounds like something you’d like, maybe?

Permanent daylight time gives us all of the downsides and exactly one benefit. I’m sorry you live that far North/South, but that’s just how the seasons and tilt of the earth work. We shouldn’t be doing split time at all, and we shouldn’t endeavor to be an hour off the rest of the world just so commuters can drive home with the sun in their eyes.

I said “Its not just north and south,” implying that time zones pay a large part in how one experiences the sun.

Daylight savings time’s intention is not to “get more or save sunlight”. The intention is to shift the time to better use the sunlight.

Depending on where you live, you’re going to be either for or against DST more or less.

Example, if you live in El Paso TX, then staying on DST is amazing. They get 365 days where the sunsets after 6 pm while having basically the same number of days where the sun rises before 7 am . However, if you live in Auburn AL, then you probably hate permanent DST because the sun would hardly ever rise before 7 am. Auburn benefits from the current system or they get less affected by getting rid of DST.

The length of your day is not defined by your time zone. It is defined by your latitude, how far north of the equator you are. X degrees north gets Y hours of sunlight at N time of year.

Yes that is correct.

Look at Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Their daylight length is less

Sioux Falls

7:08am sunrise to 5:12pm sunset CST

Rapid City

6:36am sunrise to 4:37pm sunset MST (7:36am CST to 5:37pm CST)

Sioux Falls

10 hr 4 mins of sunlight

Rapid City

10 hr 1 mins of sunlight

Because of the latitude difference, they have a ~3 minute difference in the amount of sun tomorrow. Because latitude affects how fast the sun sets and rises, the total sunlight will be slightly different.

Let’s say you wake up at 6am.

Rapid City

Light

Sioux Falls

Dark

Now if you got off work at 5pm

Rapid City

Dark

Sioux Falls

Light

Now, would you prefer to live in Rapid City or Sioux Falls? It depends on your sleep and work schedule, probably.

What if we moved Rapid City to CST? (Basically DST, +1 hour)

Wake up 6

Dark

Get off work at 5

Light

Some people in Rapid City might enjoy that.

So instead of creating a fucking nightmare for commerce and programming, we should be working the hours that make sense.

Being on the western edge of a time zone means your work hours should be different than on the Eastern edge

These two sentences conflict so hard

Let’s look at Alabama and Georgia since the time zone splits them.

So what you’re saying is someone that lives in Alabama near the Georgia line should have a different time to go to work than some living in Alabama on the other side of the state?

Is your solution just having more time zones? Because that is more complicated and has nothing to do with daylight savings time.

The problem isn’t the time zone. It’s capitalism demanding you work the entire day away even though productivity has increased massively and we work far more than our ancestors from supposedly dreary times.

This is random.

You just want people to pick whenever they feel like working? In Sioux Falls the sun sets at 5:12pm CST tomorrow. I want 4 hours of full sunlight after work. So I should be able to work from 5:12 am to 1:12pm?

I think your point was “8 hour work day is bullshit”. And I’m not against that but that’s a whole other discussion.

Even if we all didn’t work, we would still fight over keeping our current system, staying on DST, or staying on standard time. Some will want more light in morning. Some would want it in the evening.

That’s why shifting the time zone is, at most, going to get you the sun in your eyes as you drive home.

This only happens if you have to drive west during that exact time.

What’s funny is the idea of DST tries to correct stuff like this

Say everyone from Westburg has to commute to Eastville to work (or to play because they don’t have to work and be enslaved to capitalism). Everyone is going to hate driving home afterwards if they all have to do it at the exact time the sun will shine directly into their eyes.

One solution is work begins and ends earlier or later. (Or you park your jetski early or later.)

Or you could shift the time + or - 1 hour like DST does.

Also, once again, it’s not about magically getting more sunlight. It’s about shifting the sunlight you get to better suit your desires.

And it wastes energy as people try to heat the coldest part of the day instead of staying under their blankets

Wow.

Anyways, I’m sorry you are unfortunate enough to get out of work at the time the sunset would be a problem and have to drive straight towards it.

Some people would prefer to double down on DST. Instead of falling back in the fall, you spring forward again. Then in the spring you fall back. Make DST standard. Maybe this is something you’d be interested in if you hated sun in the morning and wanted at least an hour of it after work.

There is nothing “standard” for the sun to set in Sioux Falls at 5:12pm CST. It could easily set at 6:12pm if the whole system wasn’t based off of Greenwich England. You could have had SFMT (Sioux Falls Mean Time) and then base all other time zones off of it. Sun would set at 6:12pm SFST. You could do daylight savings and turn it into the sun setting at 7:12pm SFDST. You could do daylight wasting time and make the sun set at 5:12pm SFDWT.

It’s all arbitrary

They have to start and stop somewhere is the problem and you don’t want half a city or town using two different times. Imagine if the hardware store on one side of town closed at 8 EST and the mall on the other closed at 8 CST. Theoretically, they could be right next to each other even. For example, if you lived by the hardware store but worked at the mall, things would be a mess.

So really not awful cut offs but more weird cut offs. Because making standard cut offs doesn’t make it any better. Kind of like, best they can be with current system.

I find time zones and everything so interesting and that people don’t understand it at all. Some people will say “I hate daylight savings time” when they like the extra hour of light in the evening but hate changing their clocks. They like DST but hate changing the clocks and probably want to stay on DST always.

There’s no best way to do it. It’s all preference.

I compared Sioux Falls SD to Rapid City SD in another comment on this thread. If Rapid City was CST like Sioux Falls the sun would set 25 minutes later in Rapid City, but since it is MST the sun sets 35 minutes before.

You also got to think some start work at 8 some start at 9. If you start at 9, you’re more likely in favor of DST.

Yeah a lot of misinformation around DST. People don’t like being wrong and I guess the image didn’t fit what they wanted to be right. Oh well lol

Like I said, “It’s not just north or south.”

Time zones change the sunset time east and west as well.

Abolishing time zones has nothing to do with “fixing” daylight savings.

Even if we all switched to UTC and got rid of time zones . Everyone would have to decide when to go to bed, when to wake up, and when to work to fit it around the sun.

5:13pm CST is 11:13pm UTC

If Sioux Falls wanted to stay “standard time” for the sun. They would have to start work at 3pm UTC and get off work at 11pm UTC. (9am to 5pm)

Yet they could decide that they wanted to get “daylight savings time” for the sun, they would start work at 2pm UTC and get off at 10pm UTC. They would get one extra hour of sun after work instead of before.

Thank you. You did a great job explaining it.

The gradients change based on time zones. You’ll see how they line up.

Walking over a time zone line changes time one hour, but the sunset time doesn’t magically change an hour.

Like say you are standing between Georgia and Alabama. If you walk into Georgia the sun will set at around 5:30pm EST. If you walk into Alabama the sun will set at around 4:30pm CST.

The sun is setting one hour earlier in Alabama but you are basically watching the exact same sunset.

As you go further west into Alabama the time zone change “makes more sense” because the time zone being exactly between Alabama and Georgia doesn’t make sense other than them being separate states.

Sioux Falls SD is 43.5460°N

Rapid City SD is 44.0805°N

Sioux Falls Sunset is at 5:13pm CST

Rapid City Sunset is at 4:38pm MST

If both cities were in CST, Rapid City sun would set at 5:38pm CST

Due to the latitude difference, the sunsets should be 25 minutes apart

However, they are 35 minutes apart due to the time zone difference

If you said “Sioux Falls is farther south than Rapid City” and tried to base sunset time on just that, you’d be wrong.

It’s not just north or south

It’s almost 22 UTC

Which is 5pm EST

8am EST is when most work starts

That’s 15 hours from now

So work would start at 13 UTC

Yes, these are arbitrary numbers. Doesn’t matter if we go to work at 8am EST or 13 UTC.

However, this has nothing to do with daylight savings time or with what daylight savings time is trying to accomplish.