Jump to content

Presidential Race (Respector Edition)


Recommended Posts

Our local NPR station (KQED) also put out a really good voter guide this year. Most people would probably assume that would be slanted to the left, but I think it looks pretty neutral (although, I'm slanted pretty far left myself, so maybe that's just me!).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I want to believe that you are joking but doubt it. If our Constitution were being wriiten today, would you include the electoral college? It is such an anachronism that, were it tangible, it's picture would be next to anachronism in the dictionary. I understand your republic comment, but it is not the proper way to elect our chief executive. Many other "hallmarks of our founding fathers" have, thankfully and intelligently, been swept into the dustbin of history. If you are in favor of keeping the electoral college, I'd find a better argument.

 

The truth is that Americans don't like change and are quite traditional. That is the only reason why it remains. That and the idea that butterfly ballots, anti-voter fraud laws, electronic voting, "Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday" -type robo calls and other such things can be used to unethically at best and illegally at worst swing large electoral states to the Grand Old Rove Party.

 

If our Constitution were being written today, our leaders would have been too dumb to come up with the electoral college. State issues matter. The electoral college is a brilliant way to give ALL the people a voice, but force the candidates to address issues state by state.

 

I am glad our founding fathers also had the foresight to make it difficult to amend the Constitution so this will hang around for awhile. I recently heard of a legislative proposal to work around the electoral college w/o amending the Constitution. I hope that fails as well. I am admittedly biased being from a fairly perennial battleground state (Iowa).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Any system that allows for a candidate to receive the most votes but still lose is the wrong system.

 

" State issues matter. The electoral college is a brilliant way to give ALL the people a voice, but force the candidates to address issues state by state."

 

What? They don't address issues state by state DUE to the electoral college. They address them swing state by swing state. If the electoral college was abolished THEN not only would all voters have a voice but the candidates would be forced to treat all states equally because every vote would matter, not just those in so-called swing states.

 

"I am glad our founding fathers also had the foresight to make it difficult to amend the Constitution so this will hang around for awhile."

 

Are you having a laugh or did Jules ask you be his proxy? I am from Florida, a much bigger electoral prize and perennial battleground state than Iowa, but see no benefit to me from the electoral college. Even if there is a benefit, I would still find the electoral college stupid and hope for it's demise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah the pro/con arguments are certainly biased. But the independent analysis is very neutral and fact-based.

 

Just realized they have it online; you can see what I'm talking about: http://voterguide.so...v/propositions/

 

I just don't see why this isn't the norm everywhere. A well-informed electorate is the backbone of democracy, no?

 

I really lean on the California Voter's Guide for an indepth analysis of the propositions, which is very objective and sticks to the facts. Where an outcome of implementing a proposition is unpredictable (in terms of financial impact, for instance) the independent analysis will say so directly, but give the best estimates of experts. The analysis is followed by the pro and con arguments for the proposition, and rebuttals to each. I read all of it, and take note of who writes the arguments and rebuttals in each direction. By the time I've done all my reading, I usually have a pretty clear idea which way I'm leaning. Then I check out a few more online sources & media sources for whatever I haven't quite decided on, and am able to make a good, informed choice. I put little stock in any tv ads for the propositions, as they seem virtually always to be distortions of the facts. Ditto for the reams of political ads that flood the mailbox.

 

I'm very surprised to learn that a voter's guide isn't the norm in all states! It must make it so much harder for voters elsewhere to tease apart all the claims and falsehoods bandied about at election time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Any system that allows for a candidate to receive the most votes but still lose is the wrong system.

 

" State issues matter. The electoral college is a brilliant way to give ALL the people a voice, but force the candidates to address issues state by state."

 

What? They don't address issues state by state DUE to the electoral college. They address them swing state by swing state. If the electoral college was abolished THEN not only would all voters have a voice but the candidates would be forced to treat all states equally because every vote would matter, not just those in so-called swing states.

 

"I am glad our founding fathers also had the foresight to make it difficult to amend the Constitution so this will hang around for awhile."

 

Are you having a laugh or did Jules ask you be his proxy? I am from Florida, a much bigger electoral prize and perennial battleground state than Iowa, but see no benefit to me from the electoral college. Even if there is a benefit, I would still find the electoral college stupid and hope for it's demise.

 

The idea at its origins is simple: To maintain a unity of states, all of the states have to have equal importance. Otherwise, states would have left the union, independently, in factions, or made alliance with other countries; all of which is still possible, but not probable, nor easy. Electoral college or popular vote is really irrelevant. There are targeted swing voters in both systems. Why disenfranchise entire states or regions in the process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it means that the individual does not have equal importance to other individuals.

 

A person resides in a state and votes for president. The majority votes for that state's choice for President, then your state votes for that candidate. If you want to do a popular vote, small and sparsely populated states will not only be ignored as voters; they're needs will be overlooked in D.C. by Congress. In turn, you'd have D.C. helping out large and well-populated states at the other states' expense. Popular vote can be far more problematic than people realize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to do a popular vote, small and sparsely populated states will not only be ignored as voters; they're needs will be overlooked in D.C. by Congress. In turn, you'd have D.C. helping out large and well-populated states at the other states' expense. Popular vote can be far more problematic than people realize.

 

Right, a well-worded explanation of why representative democracy is supposed to work. And I agree, to an extent. But do you think if popular vote took over we'd have disasters in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana? Would the Federal government leave them in shambles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the electoral college was abolished THEN not only would all voters have a voice but the candidates would be forced to treat all states equally because every vote would matter, not just those in so-called swing states.

You're kidding, right? The candidates would go from L.A., to N.Y., to Chicago, to Houston, to Miami, to D.C. Any state with fewer than 10 congressional districts would be completely ignored. Period. Simple as that.

 

As far as being anyone's proxy, I have no idea how Jules feels about the electoral college and I really don't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Right, a well-worded explanation of why representative democracy is supposed to work. And I agree, to an extent. But do you think if popular vote took over we'd have disasters in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana? Would the Federal government leave them in shambles?

 

It could. They've got valuable resources that people and companies in other states would love to exploit, and they wouldn't have to deal with the side-effects since they don't live there to deal with the mess. Conversely, some states or regions have valuable resources that would give them obscene leverage if states weren't equal. Texas with oil, the plains with food crops, the south with cash crops, California with its population. Without an equal voice format in national government, these places could force their will on other states with federal cooperation, or take their business and votes elsewhere, or the violated states could take up a resistance. It'd be chaotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding, right? The candidates would go from L.A., to N.Y., to Chicago, to Houston, to Miami, to D.C. Any state with fewer than 10 congressional districts would be completely ignored. Period. Simple as that.

 

As far as being anyone's proxy, I have no idea how Jules feels about the electoral college and I really don't care.

 

Not much different from going from Ohio, to Iowa, to Wisconsin, ignoring any state where an outcome is predetermined.

 

The electoral college is not a perfect system. The popular vote has its issues as well. We live in a large country with a population spread out and also centralized in large cities. I think the problem is the winner take all thing that is troublesome. I always thought a proportional electoral vote might work better. For example a state like Wisconsin (with 10 votes) would divide this way. 2 votes would go for the highest percentage and then each congressional district would get a vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Any system that allows for a candidate to receive the most votes but still lose is the wrong system.

 

" State issues matter. The electoral college is a brilliant way to give ALL the people a voice, but force the candidates to address issues state by state."

 

What? They don't address issues state by state DUE to the electoral college. They address them swing state by swing state. If the electoral college was abolished THEN not only would all voters have a voice but the candidates would be forced to treat all states equally because every vote would matter, not just those in so-called swing states.

 

"I am glad our founding fathers also had the foresight to make it difficult to amend the Constitution so this will hang around for awhile."

 

Are you having a laugh or did Jules ask you be his proxy? I am from Florida, a much bigger electoral prize and perennial battleground state than Iowa, but see no benefit to me from the electoral college. Even if there is a benefit, I would still find the electoral college stupid and hope for it's demise.

You're an angry fellow, aren't you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could. They've got valuable resources that people and companies in other states would love to exploit, and they wouldn't have to deal with the side-effects since they don't live there to deal with the mess. Conversely, some states or regions have valuable resources that would give them obscene leverage if states weren't equal. Texas with oil, the plains with food crops, the south with cash crops, California with its population. Without an equal voice format in national government, these places could force their will on other states with federal cooperation, or take their business and votes elsewhere, or the violated states could take up a resistance. It'd be chaotic.

 

More good arguments. Well said, and compelling.

 

Is this a beginning of an end?

 

75656_529185223762102_1670174136_n.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that these states don't get as much pull in congress as ny, tx, ca, etc.

 

Either way, popular vote or Electoral College you a discounting a large groups and completely ignoring them. The electoral college is not the great bastion of republican (small r - not the party but the political system) government as you make it out. Nor is the popular vote away to elect a president. Both have flaws.

 

But you know the Electoral College is not going anywhere anytime soon. I am just saying it has problems, keeping people in solidly red or blue states form voting and thinking their vote does not matter. Voter turnouts are lower in these predetermined states than the "swing states." http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/12/03/1843166/does-electoral-college-deter-voter.html Proportional Electoral votes are the way to go (although there would be a greater chance of the popular vote loser winning the presidency). Taking the proportional electoral college model it would be something like PBO 246 and Romney 292.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Stewart knocked Romney's comments on Obama's bad government investments. Turns out Bain under Romney had more bankrupt companies than the businesses which Obama sent stimulus to.

 

If the GOP repeats the lie enough times it becomes true right. For all this talk about fact checkers and whatever. They have pretty much done a shitty job and have let both sides get away with a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Romney's self touted stepping in and saving the Olympics required a 2.7 billion dollar bailout from the government (a large chunk of which went to pork barrel projects for his cronies in Utah). And yet that seems to get a complete pass whenever he brings it up. Not sure there has ever been a more hypocritical candidate for president.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're an angry fellow, aren't you.

Yes. What are your thoughts on the electoral college, Jiminy? Also, Magic C-man, you forgot the question mark after "aren't you".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. What are your thoughts on the electoral college, Jiminy? Also, Magic C-man, you forgot the question mark after "aren't you".

 

No...I was stating the obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ladies and gents, don't start gettin' all sparky now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More good arguments. Well said, and compelling.

 

Is this a beginning of an end?

 

75656_529185223762102_1670174136_n.jpg

 

Turns out this isn't the beginning of the end, it was the end before the beginning. This quote is from years ago when McCain and Romney were running against each other. To make matters stranger, McCain just dumped on Colin Powell for endorsing Obama when he should back Romney. McCain said something to the fact of how endorsing a bad candidate is ruining Powell's legacy. I wonder how he feels about "the Palin effect" on his legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...