The many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XIX

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Obviously it's to lure suckers to bet 1 to win 60 - he can't actually win, so they're hoping to lure Paultards with loose wallets.

The opposite bet, betting 60 to win 1 (if Paul doesn't become President) wouldn't exist because the rake/transaction fee would be higher than the money you would win.

Huh? There are a squillion things that can be bet on at far longer odds than 60 to 1 for people with loose wallets to bet on. There are not enough Paultards in Australia for the bookmakers to make a buck just by attracting that market either so the sentimental vote doesnt account for it either. If he can't win, they would make it 100, 200, 500 even and attract even more bets.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the 60 to 1 is that there are circumstances that allow Ron Paul some kind of reasonable chance to be the next Prez. I'm fascinated to know what these circumstances are, less so an evaluation of bookmakers motivations.

(sorry if that sounds a little abrupt, I've just been chasing this answer for a while to no avail)

 

[Cutlass]

I still haven't got a satisfactory answer in other threads as to why Ron Paul is still a 60 to 1 shot with bookmakers to be the next President? Don't just tell me he has no chance cause clearly people with a financial stake in the outcome disagree.

Is this as an independent? Can he steal the GOP nomination? I just don't get why it is still considered a possibility (60 to 1 clearly suggests it's possible)

60 to 1 only suggests that it is not literally impossible. Not that there is any realistic chance. He's not going to get the Republican nomination. He's not running as an independent. But if a plane carrying Romney and Ryan were to crash, there would be at least some support for him to be brought in as the replacement candidate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Paultards? That's new, but not really clever. Do better. ><

 

[Cutlass]

Paultards? That's new, but not really clever. Do better. ><

It's not new.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, new to me I guess. Perhaps I should frequent the more intellectual corners of the interwebs, eh?

Or is Repuglican and Obummer still trending when people wanna me smurt. I kinda like politics and I kinda like puns, I think they could probably be combined better. These are mixing about as well as water and milk. Who was the fella with the stars and stripes piano from the 80s? I remember him being kinda funny! I guess Prairie Home Companion is political every now and then without being douchey.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

60 to 1 only suggests that it is not literally impossible. Not that there is any realistic chance. He's not going to get the Republican nomination. He's not running as an independent. But if a plane carrying Romney and Ryan were to crash, there would be at least some support for him to be brought in as the replacement candidate.

Sorry Cutlass but I disagree. 60 to 1 is far from "not literally impossible", 500 or 1000 to 1 is more in this realm. I'm not asking why you think he's not going to get the nomination or why he won't win as independent, I want to know why those prepared to put their money where there mouths are still give him a reasonable shot.

Hillary is 250 to 1 for instance which I assume factors in the heart attack/plane crash/erotic auto asphixiation scenario.

 

[Arwon]

They probably just haven't closed the market yet.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

They probably just haven't closed the market yet.

Nup, it's still fluctuating. He was actually 80 to 1 a week ago and has tightened

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Why don't Americans want to do jury duty? I would find it interesting to be on a jury.

 

[Cutlass]

Most do it with no argument. But it can be very time consuming and takes people away from their jobs and lives. So it can be very inconvenient.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Do you get any compensation at all? How understanding are employers regarding it?

 

[say1988]

Federal jurors in the US, $40 per day, raised to $50 after a period of time.

You may not be fired by your employer, but there is no obligation for your employer to pay you.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Here, it's considered ones civic responsibility to get out of jury duty, preferably in some humerous fashion that can later be joked about.

 

[Cutlass]

Do you get any compensation at all? How understanding are employers regarding it?

A very small stipend, employers are stuck with it, but certainly don't like it.

 

[Traitorfish]

It probably helps that in the US, as in the UK, most jury trials are going to be for petty narcotics crimes, which doesn't exactly make for edge-of-your-seat viewing.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It probably helps that in the US, as in the UK, most jury trials are going to be for petty narcotics crimes, which doesn't exactly make for edge-of-your-seat viewing.

You're saying TV lied to me? Bastards

 

[Leoreth]

I often hear that the Electoral College exists to protect the interests of smaller states against that of larger ones. Why is that? I get that for most states all EC votes go to one candidate, but of what use is that to the state? EC votes are assigned proportionally by population, right?

 

[Cutlass]

I often hear that the Electoral College exists to protect the interests of smaller states against that of larger ones. Why is that? I get that for most states all EC votes go to one candidate, but of what use is that to the state? EC votes are assigned proportionally by population, right?

It's not really true. The theory is that with the EC system presidential candidates can't overlook any state, they have to work all of them. But the reality is that most presidential candidates in the modern era have not worked for votes in all the states. If you know that your opponent is going to to win, even narrowly, any state, then you don't bother to contest it at all. Because it does not matter if he wins by 50.1% or by 99.9%. The result to the candidate is the same. But with direct voting the candidate would have to contest every vote.

 

[say1988]

No. The number of electoral votes a state has is set at the number of members of Congress.
Theoretically, most of the number of electors is allocated proportionally (corresponding to the House) however there is a large variation in population Representative because of the small number of representatives and large variance in populations.
However every state is given two additional electors (for Senators).
This creates a pretty strong correlation between population and number of people per elector.
There is a significant difference between the number of people per elector, with California at 615,000 and Wyoming at 164,000. This boosts Wyoming up from 0.18% of the population to 0.56% of the Electoral College.

That said I suspect institutional inertia and the fear the other party will gain an advantage are far more significant in maintaining the status quo. Especially since a number of small Democratic states passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, while no large Republican states did.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not really true. The theory is that with the EC system presidential candidates can't overlook any state, they have to work all of them. But the reality is that most presidential candidates in the modern era have not worked for votes in all the states. If you know that your opponent is going to to win, even narrowly, any state, then you don't bother to contest it at all. Because it does not matter if he wins by 50.1% or by 99.9%. The result to the candidate is the same. But with direct voting the candidate would have to contest every vote.

It's a mixed bag really Cutlass. The EC doesn't work out exactly the way the idealistic theory would like, but it does ensure that candidates care about more than the Eastern and Western seaboards and Texas. Which if you were strictly running for popular vote count would be entirely probable.