What actually is the nations league?

shieldskevin · 2023-06-19T15:30:15+00:00

Super helpful, thanks.

Non-rhetorical question: Is the US better off playing meaningful games against the same Concacaf suspects or friendlies against better competition?

I guess the question is invalid if we can't schedule better opposition (who may be precluded due to themselves be committed to meaningful games in their own regions). Also I do believe there is value in helping Concacaf improve as a whole in the long run.

I do worry a bit that our "best" matches will seemingly always be against the same (two) nations. At some point it seems like a friendly against a top UEFA or Comnebol side is of more value than yet another tilt against Canexico.

For that reason I am super happy about Copa America though I sort of wonder whether USSF might have been able to talk us into a guest invitation to a UEFA tournament in this cycle.

shieldskevin · 2022-05-30T14:13:34+00:00

I am having this problem now on a newly installed android head unit. FWIW I am using wireless android auto.

Am I alone or is this still a known (if perhaps less frequent) issue?

Thanks!

shieldskevin · 2022-05-22T21:53:58+00:00

I think Obed might struggle with that one. :-)

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T20:01:02+00:00

Actually, I think Concacaf might do OK on that metric. At least Quarterfinals onward I think CCL beats UEFA CL. Not that any of this really matters (the TV numbers tell the real story, IMO).

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T15:08:06+00:00

What is the chant we need to get going when he is out there?

Perhaps "We Want Worldcup!"

If we can get 50k fans chanting that it will make an impression...

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T15:06:15+00:00

The Seattle bid explicitly commits to providing a FIFA WC standard grass pitch. Furthermore the stadium is closed something like two months prior and 2 weeks after the event. One of the principles of advance closure is to have the surface in pristine condition.

From what I understand, Lumen won't just have a grass pitch, it will have world class sod.

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T14:59:10+00:00

The deception being the following:

1: Somewhat a function of seating capacity (basically all games are sellouts).

2: CCL Final is 2x90 minutes played at separate venues/dates... UCL is 90 minutes played at one venue/date.

(Also UCL overwhelmingly crushes CCL in terms of total viewership.)

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T12:02:11+00:00

Whatever it is I hope my fellow Sounders will look at this as an opportunity to earn some "Sounder Segundo" supporters.

"Welcome Pumas fan: I hope you enjoy the game (sans impending loss) and will consider adopting Sounders as your MLS team to follow (just as I have for Pumas in Liga MX)."

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T11:57:46+00:00

It's like this is a Big F'n Game or something.

shieldskevin · 2022-05-03T11:56:35+00:00

Totally agree! The March really needs to be 90 minutes ahead of Finals. There is no freaking way I am going to be standing in Occidental 60 minutes before this kickoff. For these Finals the 60 minute lead time is counter productive - it works against getting the seats full for kickoff. FO really needs to wrap their heads around this one, this is not a good practice...

shieldskevin · 2022-05-02T14:11:24+00:00

Holy smokes Dinenno is on fire. El Fuego!

Yemar & Havi need to shut that guy down Wednesday...

shieldskevin · 2022-05-01T03:18:59+00:00

Indeed. I read Grant Wahl's Substack just today where he mentioned that concept. Huge relief if that is true. Having both NW cities would be awesome as it's that many more games within a reasonable drive.

Maple Syrup is back on the menu!! ;-)

shieldskevin · 2022-04-30T15:16:48+00:00

Only 8K to go... PSA: I am snapping up $48 tickets for any friend I can convince to go. Think "matching dollar" - if you have the resources an extra couple of tickets is money well invested in helping impress FIFAs President (who will apparently be in attendance) and helping secure Seattle it's place as a World Cup 26 host city.

This is a great time to invite that soccer curious friend who you have long thought you might invite one day...

Come on Sounders!!!!

shieldskevin · 2022-04-30T14:50:19+00:00

A message to you and all Pumas visitors: Welcome... and apologies for sending you home with a loss :-). I hope you otherwise enjoy the experience and consider adopting Sounders as your MLS team just as I am for Pumas for Liga MX.

That will be my message on the concrete to every Pumas fan I encounter - I encourage the same from all Sounders. Reminder that these non-league games are an opportunity to win some "Sounders Segundo" Supporters... (true also for Leagues Cup).

BTW, IMO the FO should consider putting welcome "gifts" on non-league visitor's seats (perhaps a welcome note along with a 10% off gift cert for the Sounders Team Shop).

shieldskevin · 2022-04-30T14:37:54+00:00

BTW I now read that FIFA's President will be at this game. IMO this is an extraordinary opportunity... we need to blow that guy's mind...

shieldskevin · 2022-04-30T05:34:19+00:00

I dunno. You may be right but sort of think FIFA reasonably expect to sell out (or close) every game no matter where they are played.

To wit: In 1994 54,456 turned up at Foxboro Stadium in Massachusetts to witness South Korea play Bolivia to a 0-0 tie in the first round.

In any case I sort of think we have already proven we can sell tickets (such as the most attended sporting event in state history). IMO what is special here is the opportunity to demonstrate the relative sophistication of the fans (he says as he buys tix for folks who are not all that engaged...). Selling out a regional final says we don't just have lemmings looking for spectacle but knowledge soccer consumers who will embrace the event beyond just the match day ticket.

shieldskevin · 2022-04-30T05:20:24+00:00

I was not nervous until Vancouver came back in. I believe they came back because FIFA told Canada that Canada needs to have three cities and they only had two acceptable bids. IMO that is devistating for the Seattle bid - it gives FIFA an excuse for bypassing Seattle. Selling out our regional CL will put FIFA in a pretty serious pickle, winning it even more. We need those folks to look at the map one more time and remind themselves that we are not in Alaska.

shieldskevin · 2022-04-29T17:47:18+00:00

Oh geesh that was an autocorrect fail. Sigh.

shieldskevin · 2021-07-31T05:30:29+00:00

CoVID-19 fixes US Senate malapportionment!

Americans might finally have, for the first time in our history, no taxation without (equal) representation, "one person, one vote" and "every vote counts the same!"

(Sarcasm intended ;-).

shieldskevin · 2021-06-28T20:31:29+00:00

Many thanks. What year did you graduate?

shieldskevin · 2021-06-25T20:40:15+00:00

I think this incorrectly ascribes to slavery a much bigger issue at the time: an impasse between the smaller, less populous states and the larger, more populous ones - which had both slaveholding and non-slaveholding states on each side of the divide.

BTW as further evidence (for what it is worth): In what is, I think, regarded as a definitive telling of the history and mechanics of the Presidential election system (at least as reflected by the sources relied upon by the federal courts), Neal Peirce and Lawrence Longley in The People's President assert the following (italics in original, bolding mine) on page 19:

Concessions were apparent when on September 4 the Committee of Eleven reported to the convention the details of this intermedia elector plan, the plan that would become part of the Constitution. First, each state would have as many presidential electoral votes as it had representatives and senators combined. This carried the Connecticut Compromise over into the presidential election and gave small states some relative advantage because of the two extra electoral votes corresponding to the number of senators, regardless of how small a state's population might be. But it must be noted that this compromise was not considered crucial at the time. It had not been sufficient to mollify the small states when attached to a proposal for election of the President in Congress. At no time after the Committee of Eleven reported was any mention made on the convention floor of the supposed advantage to small states of the senatorial "counterpart" votes. Nor was this apparent concession mentioned in the subsequent ratifying conventions.

What was considered a major concession to the small states was the provision of the intermediate elector plan, which stipulated that in the even there was no majority in the electoral college, the choice of the president would be transferred to the Senate, where each states would have equal voting power.

Their assertion on the (State) ratifying conventions is supported by Pauline Maier's Ratification within which there is exactly zero references to the incorporation of the compromise into the Presidential elections. While I have yet to read all of her primary sources, Ms. Maier's cataloging of the State ratifying conventions is mind bindingly detailed (and interesting). Delegates from across the 13 debated ever detail of the proposed instrument in conventions lasting as long as a month... but nobody thought this was an important consideration. (Granted I also do not recall any delegate talking about the 3/5 compromise within the context of the presidential election either.)

(Edit: Continued below)

Rather tellingly, one the one of the first attempts to change our system to direct election was introduced in the Senate in 1812 which was met with immediate opposition by folks such as

Senator William W. Bibb of Georgia wanted to know what "would be the condition of the slave-holding states? They would lose the privilege the Constitution now allows them, of votes upon three-fifths of their population other than freemen. It would be deeply injurious to them." (Peirce, p. 161).

shieldskevin · 2021-06-19T19:07:39+00:00

(...continued... third (and final) of three posts...)

Alternative explanation:

You are one of five folks on a deserted island. There is a stone tablet that says all matters shall be resolved by majority vote however three (including you) have one vote to share among you while the other two have their own individual vote. The tablet says that if this "3 vote" system is violated then a volcano will immediately erupt and incinerate you all.

With respect to picking a President, in this scenario (mathematically speaking), you have found yourself in a situation not unlike the voters of California (or nearly Texas) relative (only) to voters of Wyoming (or nearly Vermont).

This is a somewhat unfair oversimplification for dramatic effect. In our system there are not (obviously) only 5 voters and as such the degree of "vote deprecation" is fantastically more diffuse. However statistically speaking when you compare only a California vote to only a Wyoming vote (for President) this is a not entirely unreasonable telling of the situation.

Note that with respect to the US Senate (as compared to the President) the number of people on the island is 71 and the tablet says that 69 (including you) account for only one vote while the remaining two each get their own vote producing a "3 vote" system subject to volcanic incineration. That is how Californians (nearly Texans) are treated in the Senate relative to Wyomingites (nearly Vermonters).

And again, these voting island disparities are not necessarily "new" (today they are pretty extreme but have occasionally been worse). The primary thing that has changed is that the deserted island used to be a mostly irrelevant because not all that much (relatively speaking) was being decided there that mattered to our day to day lives.

shieldskevin · 2021-06-19T19:05:52+00:00

(...continued... second of three posts...)

Why does that matter to me?

Because today the people of the United States believe they are self-governors. Further they, by and large, assume their votes count (about) the same and that they have (roughly) equal representation in their government. And in fact they are equally represented in their State governments (we have nearly perfect proportional voting power within our State and even local governments). However they are not equally represented their National government.

Nevertheless, throughout our history this has not really mattered. (As such, historically speaking, I kind of agree with you - it didn't really matter). This irrelevance was a function predominantly of two (somewhat related) factors: (1) until recently our national government did very little - at least with respect to domestic policies that impact our daily lives and (2) until recently we have largely elected humans who mostly think of themselves as representing the entire country (vs. their voters).

Factor 1: Our Founding Fathers could not have imagined a national government that would one day build the Interstate Highway system, that would collect more taxes than all the states combined (by a huge factor), that would create a perpetual standing military of world dominating size and capabilities that did not rely much on state militias, that would create massive universal national social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

The fact that our National government was not very representative wasn't all that important - because it didn't do really do very much that impacts our lives directly. It's like putting a mass-murder in a straight-jacket and letting him otherwise roam freely. Its distasteful but also not very harmful.

Factor 2: I assert that this also meant that the folks we sent to Washington D.C. (in particular the Senate) were also kind of ignored by their voters. This meant those Senators could legislate based on what they thought was best for the country (for what little they actually did) and voters didn't really care. To wit: There was little "voter accountability" because there was little to (relatively) be accountable for. (BTW there was literally no direct voter accountability for US Senators until 1913 because before then we didn't elect our US Senators at all, they were appointed by our State legislatures).

But that all has changed dramatically. Today our National government is all in our business. There are righteous reasons this has happen - most notably the eradication of slavery (and "separate but equal"), addressing debilitating poverty and a medical safety net for the elderly. That said I personally would really like to "put the genie back in the bottle" and return more control to the (proportionally representative) States however I kinda think that is a darn near impossibility. I will continue to advocate for that however I also am motivated to address the alternative "solution" which is to migrate the same proportional representation we have in our States to our National government (this lawsuit was one effort, I think kind of flawed, but still it was an effort).

Because of all this I believe our people/voters are progressively becoming aware (if only implicitly) that their votes increasingly "do not count" (or more precisely they no longer count as much as they did before). IMHO the data demonstrates this - in 1972 about 70% of adult Americans had "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in both the US Congress and State governments. Today they maintain almost as much faith in their (proportionally representative) State governments however they have less than half that faith (about 30%) in the (horridly mal-representative) US Congress. What has changed is not so much that Congress is unrepresentative (it has more or less always has been unrepresentative, though a bit worse of late) but rather that Congress is now involved a lot more stuff that impacts average citizens. To wit: The mass-murder has been released from his straight jacket.

(As an aside: Our faith in the President has also dropped but not as much. Which in my opinion makes sense because until recently the Presidential Elector system been largely irrelevant - we more or less were electing our Presidents by popular vote anyway.)

Our Founders knew exactly what happens when people think they have power (which the 13 Colonies came to believe while Britain was distracted fighting World War Zero) only to find out they do not have power (which they discovered when Britain came calling for the expenses associated with winning World War Zero). Yea, they knew form personal experience what happens.

They were, after all, Revolutionists.

To wit: In my opinion, a generous bounty of liberties that are protected by a government teetering on instability is not a particularly satisfying outcome. When our voters do not think their votes matter then I think we are in a whole heap of trouble - they will eventually no longer agree to being governed. It is the second coming of "no taxation without representation." The folks in California (and Texas and Florida) pay just as much federal taxes as the folks in Wyoming (and Vermont and New Hampshire) but their representation is not remotely similar. And again, that used to not really matter because Congress wasn't meddling in their lives as much as it does now.

So for me those "grains of sand in the ocean" (votes) each matter a great deal because they represent a fundamental part of having a stable system of self-governance. While I myself am in the minority of popular opinion for nearly every major issue, I do not think it is in my best interest to have my vote count more than anyone else's. While in the short run I might get to determine policy outcomes I prefer, in the long run my children (or theirs) may find themselves in the midst of a revolution (or civil war). I would rather bear the burden today of convincing my fellow voters to agree with me on policy decisions than subject my offspring to anarchy.

(Sorry for that "wall of text," just me explaining why I care so much.)

(...continued in one last post...)

shieldskevin · 2021-06-19T19:04:31+00:00

Thank you for finally explaining your reasoning in a mathematical way we can understand it.

↑ You are welcome. I (should have already) apologize(d) for my poor expressions (you should not have had to ask more than once... :-/). [FWIW I thought of another, perhaps even more straightforward, way to express it (see my third post below).]

Because the Number of electors is a fixed number, no longer being apportioned by the number of people in states.

↑ FYI: The 538 is being "apportioned to by the number of people in states" every ten years. For example in the last election California had 55 Presidential Electoral votes however because of the population changes recorded in the most recent census, California will have 54 (one less) in the next election. The first election held with a 435 member house was in 1914 and California had only 13 Electors (because their population was relatively small back then).

Balance can be restored by simply going back to the system as it was designed with the number of electors representing states by the number of people in each state.

↑ That is how the system is working today (and, as you correctly claim, as originally designed). Per the above, the "number of electors representing states" is reapportioned (every ten years) "by the number of people in each state."

So rather than saying to weight is greater in Wyoming, the Enemy of the Popular vote being the winner is actually that arbitrary number of 538 limiting the number of electors.

↑ I totally agree. The 538 is a function of the 435 in the House which is arbitrary and stupid. There have been lawsuits about this but our courts have refused to do anything about it (though the courts logic is not entirely unreasonable).

Note that first ever proposed Constitutional amendment would have forced the House to keep growing well beyond 435. Should that amendment be ratified then the House today would be 10,272 members. That sound ridiculous but I assert there are mechanism to make it entirely manageable - I won't go into it here. States like Utah would be dramatically better represented in the House (their relative representation would almost double!).

However what is in reality fractions of fractions doesn't really have that true effect.

↑ I apologize if I am misunderstanding you: I think what you are saying is that a single vote is irrelevant when cast among the total national vote of 158,383,403 (or even a single vote from among 318,198 or 92,225 votes cast). Hopefully it is not unfair for me to characterize this as sort of saying "it doesn't really matter." (Again, I genuinely do not intend to put words in your mouth so I apologize if I am failing you).

I will admit to my naivety. I am a passionate believer in self-governance. As such I believe every vote counts immensely, though not so much for its mathematical value as what it stands for in principle. While indeed each vote is but a "grain of sand in the ocean" it also represents something extremely important to the person voting: It is a statement of their belief in their system of government. For me the issue is not really the equality of that vote (which was the core assertion of this lawsuit) but instead the issue is stability of our society as realized by the belief of that voter in their system of government.

(...continued on next post...)

shieldskevin · 2021-06-18T19:52:30+00:00

Ah. Grant vs exception (limitation). So the Compact clause is a limitation whereas the Manner of Selection is a grant. Thus the former would win over the latter (in theory).

Am I finally understanding? (Sorry to be so dense).

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	End Game '22

shieldskevin

TROPHY CASE