Beketov

Hitting more means PIM’s, nothing can be done about that. I’d argue it’s impressive in itself to spend that much more time in the box and still only be down 4 points.

Boy that is one shallow ballot. Also, 4 points less but more goals + defensive numbers. Just saying

I described the process earlier, would take 2 seconds. I do it like 40 times a day to mask cuts.

Fucking lazy ass editors can’t fix their audio and don’t have dupe detection on. Amateurs.

the really funny thing is, that little “pop” you get from a bad edit takes 2 seconds to fix. A 2 frame centre aligned fade on the audio hides it 99% of the time. Cant even get a decent editor to make their fucking fake news smh

I really love watching Trump whine that voting needs to stop, but naturally only where he’s leading. Go ahead, stop the count, you’ll lose if you do. Biden is up in Arizona and Nevada and that’s all he needs to win it so go ahead and stop counting you orange dumbass, see where it gets you. Or, do the right (read: legal) thing, and count every damn ballot. You’ll still lose but maybe with a minor shred of dignity for the first time in your miserable life.

No one on the Wolves can agree on what team to use for their gifs smh Well done though guys, great series all around.

Game 6!

Georgia is back to counting mind you and Trump is only leading by .4%

I would just like to say BTW that not o lot has this been a very civil discussion but it’s also one of the most active topics on the forum in a long time. Love to see it.

Did anyone expect him to? The really scary part is how much damage he’s going to try and do on his way out the door. Assuming Biden wins he doesn’t actually take over for 2 months...

He’s got Michigan, that’s been confirmed basically across the board. I think they just really don’t want to be. Allied for for projecting too early. They’d rather be late to the game than show up early and give trump more fuel for his bullshit fire.

Depends where you look. Some have called it, Others haven’t. CBS, NY Times, and CNN all haven’t called Arizona yet

Two unless it’s Pennsylvania. Or did he get Arizona?

6 out of the last 7 if I’m not mistaken actually.

6 out of the last

No Boom, Thank you.

My hunch says none. NDP being official opposition in 2013 is likely the closest we’ve had.

It also helps that he’s technically just another MP. Prime Minister just means leader of the governing party so they could toss him out of the party and someone else would just be PM. It’s not like requiring a full impeachment or anything, it’s the party’s choice and if the party doesn’t make it, like you said, the others can. The president being his own branch of government definitely makes things a little more complicated.

Arguably they are still using it, just annoyingly they’ve had the same guy at the top multiple times. The system isn’t completely broken really, it would work fine if Putin’s political opponents didn’t keep turning up dead.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the system needs to be better balanced. It can’t just be “popular vote wins” because that’s purely urban controlled and it can’t be balanced as it is now because that’s purely Rural controlled. There’s definitely a balance point to be had where control is a bit more urban than it is now but not overboard. First Past the Post that we have in Canada helps as well because within the provinces we can still get representation. In the US if 1 urban area votes one way but the rest of the rural areas vote another that urban area tends to get screwed because it’s all or nothing. In FPTP you would have a representative for that urban area and then other representatives for the rural areas. So to keep it simple it the electoral college votes in a state are 10 right now you get all 10 or 0. Assuming a straight conversation of EC votes to FPTP seats you could get all 10 but you could also get 4 or 6 or anything. It helps to balance things.

Putin hasn’t actually turned it into the dictatorship that it feels like but he has taken advantage of the fact that Russia has a Prime Minister and a President by being both and using the power of each to extend the term for the other. So basically when he was PM he extended the Presidential term then he became president and extended the PM’s term, then he became PM again. Something like that. He’s basically gaming the system to remain in power but the system as it’s designed would function very well in the US. The president has actually very little authority, the “house” and “senate” control the country with the “senate” being made up entirely by representatives of the provinces, with each one getting 2. So there’s never a senate flip or anything, they just all have to work together because their numbers will always be the same and they don’t align to a specific party. I don’t remember all the details but it’s actually a pretty solid system of government. Takes the best parts of the US system with the best parts of FPTP.

Have you read my other comments or just the responses to you? I’ve touched my n more or less all of this. The original one that got us down this path was in response to someone directly stating a “popular vote wins” method which is why I started stating that it was problematic. I’ve also said several times that the winner takes all approach of the electoral college is severely flawed and that the numbers need to be adjusted to more accurately represent populations without going too far the other way.

As I stated elsewhere in here the electoral college is far from perfect because of that “all or nothing” issue. It’s a bit less apparent with FPTP because we have regional representatives so the people we vote for are actually the ones representing us. In theory however the electoral college could work but it’s numbers need to be re-aligned to current populations. You do need to give a certain amount of votes to less populated states because their vote needs to matter as well but currently some states have far more control than their population dictates they should have. On paper: nothing. In practice, plenty. I don’t have the numbers but probably 50% of Canadians love in Ontario and BC. So in theory you could win an election only by looking at the needs of Ontario and BC. On paper that’s fair, they have the population, but in practice it means that the other 11 provinces and territories needs could be completely ignored because they don’t have the population to make an impact. Do you think any politician would ever care about what the farmer’s of PEI need? They can get more than that entire province by hanging out in just Quebec City for a day. That’s the inevitable problem. Larger places automatically get representation while smaller places get completely ignored. There’s a balance that must be struck (which Canada is closer to than the US but still not great) but you can’t purely say “popular vote wins” or else people who live away from the main population centres get 0 representation.

It can’t be that simple though, unless you want a few select places to dictate the elections for everyone. Take Canada for example. The cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary alone have a population of ~6 million people. The entire country has ~37 million. So by your metric 3 cities would control 1/6th of the entire country. It disproportionately represents people in large areas because those would be the only places politicians would care about. Why bother going to the province of NB (population ~776k)to campaign when you could go to just the city of Montreal and reach ~1 million MORE voters. The US would be even more harsh. The state of California alone has over 10% of the country’s population. One state shouldn’t be able to dictate that much realistically. Breaking it up by location is important to ensure that everyone at least gets some say instead of just the major cities getting all the campaigning and focus.