Get out and vote

mad_machine wrote: it could be broken down from statewide to congressional district wide. Considering that electors are chosen to equal the number of congressmen and senators each state has. Depending on how the district votes, would determine how the elector votes.

The districts this year would have yielded a 4xx to sub 100 in favor of Trump. I'm not sure if it was that Clinton was disliked so much or it was a large portion of the population being tired of being blamed for E36 M3 they didn't do that yielded that result. I'm guessing the 2nd part there had more to do with it.

EDIT: It appears the two maps below are not what they claim to be. In other words this graphic is internet bullE36 M3. Not sure if the data here is correct or not and not posting with the intent to flounder up this thread, but thought it was an interesting comparison. I think it would be interesting to determine if there is causality here or just coincidence. It may only mean that humans are not made to live with high population densities and nothing more. I can think of several alternative hypotheses, but like I said, it would be interesting to try to figure out the relationship, if any, between the two data sets.

Define "crime rate." Is it crimes per square mile? Crimes per person? Per month? All that map is saying is that there are more crimes in the cities, based on however theyre tallying them up. I dont think thats controversial. This is why I hate "info memes."

Also, absolutely no sources cited. Could just be completely made up. Always, always use a critical eye when you see this stuff.

My guess is it's more crime simply do to more people. More people per square mile, more criminals per square mile.

Much like the stat saying 95% of car accidents happen within 5 miles of home. The fact that 95% of your driving also happens within the same area is carefully left out.

Like I said, I have no idea of what data that crime map is showing or if it is even created from actual data. It does say crime rate, which to me implies a per capita type number and not a total number of crimes.

EDIT: http://www.snopes.com/crime-rates-democrats-vote/ Looks like both of the two maps are not really what they claim, if snopes is to be believed. They seem just about as sketchy as a random meme picture based on their track record though. In this case what they say seems to make sense, but they do go on to conclude that although the two maps are misrepresented, the idea that the areas that vote more for one party also have the most crimes. So in typical snopes fashion, they say it is false, but then essentially at the end admit the concept is actually true.

So the crime map is really a comparison of the murder rate in various large cities taken from the Census data from 2009. So, of course it only shows large cities. The other map is from 2013 and shows the most populous 146 counties. Nothing to do with the 2016 election.

I should just go back up and delete my original post, but I guess I will leave it since the follow on discussion wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

In reply to T.J.:

There does tend to be a higher rate per person in cities....

Back to the Senator's salary for a second. There are benefits beyond immediate salary just as there is from spending your time in college, plus since even the relatively poorer people who enter the ring end up rich I'd say there's more potential for wealth just by being elected.

I'm not saying it's underhanded or it's legit, I'm only saying the income exists.

Our forefathers never envisioned a political class, and that's what it's become. They worked hard to be sure we didn't have a political class.

I'm just wondering how a career politician can relate to me and make decisions that will benefit me and not themselves.

In reply to carguy123:

I'm still waiting for someone to chime in on if they get to cash out their campaign accounts....

In reply to WOW Really Paul?:

If I remember correct at least here in NY the can't pocket it but they can use it for legal fees if they are arrested. This comes up in the news more often than it should.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to carguy123: I'm still waiting for someone to chime in on if they get to cash out their campaign accounts....

Apparently, they used to be able to pocket the remaining funds, but there are more restrictions now,

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-cash/

If senators and representitive get paid so little, why would anyone want the job? Civic duty? Make America a better place? If their campaign tactics are any indication of what they are most concerned about, it isn't the wellbeing of you or I. There must be a reason.

Appleseed wrote: If senators and representitive get paid so little, why would anyone want the job? Civic duty? Make America a better place? If their campaign tactics are any indication of what they are most concerned about, it isn't the wellbeing of you or I. There must be a reason.

Funny enough. A father of a kid in my sons preschool was a state representative for 4 years. We chatted about it at a recent fundraiser. He is a lawyer and a law geek. He loved the challenge, but he had to work a full time job as well as be a full time rep and it burnt him out. Too much work, not enough pay. So he went back to being a lawyer. Yes, He did it out of love of country.

I'm just talking about State level.

Appleseed wrote: If senators and representitive get paid so little, why would anyone want the job? ...There must be a reason.

Indeed: Revolving Door Surtax

Appleseed wrote: If senators and representitive get paid so little, why would anyone want the job? Civic duty? Make America a better place? If their campaign tactics are any indication of what they are most concerned about, it isn't the wellbeing of you or I. There must be a reason.

Look at how many dramatically increase their net worth after they get out of office.