Timeline for Which attempts to create or revise states resulted in action?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2014 at 9:26 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Your last bit about the Senate seems a bit overly-dismissive, considering this has historically been the primary political concern about adding new states. For example, Texas is one (huge) state because it kept the North/South Senate balance at the time to do it that way. Sequoyah was killed partly because Eastern states didn't want 2 new Western states. You may be right from mathematical perspective, but that's neither how it has been viewed in the past, nor I suspect how it is likely to be viewed in the future. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 0:42 | comment | added | sds | @Oldcat, PieterGeerkens: Excellent points, thanks! I guess this analysis is not as simple as I thought at first. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 23:17 | comment | added | Oldcat | A very small new state will see extra power, as it is assured 2 Senators and 1 Representative. If we ever got to 435 such micro states there would be 1 Rep for each state, whatever size until they change the rule of 435 total Representatives. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 23:11 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | Additionally, if the seceding portion tends to vote opposite the rump, yet is smaller, then the influence of voters in the seceding portion increases, so they win also in a first past the post by state system. Given the gerrymandering that pervades US electoral system, this is much more likely than not. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:58 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | Why does the super-additive property overwhelm the 2+ additional Electoral College Votes in a case where no state has as many as 20% of the total votes (so your example is nowhere near applying)? | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:52 | comment | added | sds | @PieterGeerkens: do you want me to prove that Shapley value is super-additive? This is a relatively well-known fact. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:51 | history | edited | sds | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:21 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | That's definitely not obvious from the obvious increase in Electoral College votes, so please add a proof to your post. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:16 | comment | added | sds | @PieterGeerkens: Shapley value wtr to the presidential elections is decreased. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 22:09 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | The two new states, combined, would have at least two additional electoral votes than the original state, from two additional Senators and at least as many Representatives. How does this decrease Shapley Value? | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 21:38 | history | answered | sds | CC BY-SA 3.0 |