That’s unfortunately not really a contradiction though, given the electoral college — I think Harris will obliterate Trump in the popular, but that’s sadly not what matters.
If The Superbowl had a roughly 1/5 chance of the winner being declared the loser because of a technicality, we would burn this shit to the ground. Yet, here we are with roughly 1/5 of all presidential elections being overturned by the EC.
Right. But I think it’s a mischaracterization to represent the EC as a “technicality,” as it’s very central to the way voting in the USA works. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s stupid and should be abolished, but it’s very much ingrained in the voting system.
I think I’d counter your example — keeping the sports theme — by saying it’s like the World Series: it doesn’t matter if there are three absolute blowouts, all the matters is who wins four games. So you could easily win the World Series, but have fewer total runs across seven games (game = EC votes, runs = popular).
(Again, I think the EC should absolutely be abolished.)
Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.
It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.
But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.
That’s unfortunately not really a contradiction though, given the electoral college — I think Harris will obliterate Trump in the popular, but that’s sadly not what matters.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
If The Superbowl had a roughly 1/5 chance of the winner being declared the loser because of a technicality, we would burn this shit to the ground. Yet, here we are with roughly 1/5 of all presidential elections being overturned by the EC.
Right. But I think it’s a mischaracterization to represent the EC as a “technicality,” as it’s very central to the way voting in the USA works. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s stupid and should be abolished, but it’s very much ingrained in the voting system.
I think I’d counter your example — keeping the sports theme — by saying it’s like the World Series: it doesn’t matter if there are three absolute blowouts, all the matters is who wins four games. So you could easily win the World Series, but have fewer total runs across seven games (game = EC votes, runs = popular).
(Again, I think the EC should absolutely be abolished.)
Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.
It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.
But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.
Didn’t know any of that. Thanks. I don’t watch sportsball. I wonder if Baseball or Hockey would work better as a metaphor.