BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

Well, there is, given how many other countries manage to do it successfully.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

a little extremist, don't you think?  It's not the first vote to go against advanced metrics, and one of sports greatest aspects is the human factor.  The definition of MVP (or rookie of the year, Gold Glove, etc) has never been specifically defined - and that is something I like about baseball.  For this guy to express his disgust now seems well, just silly.

It was satire of this: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/20 … -only.html

lol

Do you contribute to that site or just browse?

Getting a sense of Poe's law.

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again. Read previous posts a bit more. And look at overall election results. There were plenty of examples of representatives/senators of one party being elected, while the state overall went for the candidate of the other party (which would give that person an extra two electoral votes under my proposal, as well).

Look, it's just a bad idea. There's no way to keep bias out of the process that defines district boundaries. Everyone has an agenda of some sort. Your way is just a masked vote by the House. My way is a masked direct democracy vote with a slight lean favoring rural states. Neither is perfect, but at least mine eliminates arbitrariness.

Look, it's not.

When you look at the data, my proposal makes the race dynamic far more reflective of the popular vote than either the current system or your proposal, while also maintaining the intent of the electoral college to balance rural and urban vote weight.

You incorrectly assume that 1) the presidential vote will go to the same party as the representative race's vote in a given district--there is plenty of proof that is not the case; 2) gerrymandering will be more prevalent than it is today--an assumption I disagree with, as my proposal puts the spotlight on any attempts to gerrymander; and 3) the same party is always elected to the House from a given district--if that were a valid assumption, the House would never change control.

I'm fairly certain that under my proposal, Romney would still have lost, but the electoral margin would've been far closer to the margin of the popular vote. 2000 is an outlier...otherwise, the proposed system brings the results closer to the actual popular vote results, while still maintaining the intent of the EC. In 2000, 86 districts flip-flopped (dem for rep, rep for dem). In 2004, 59. In 2008, 83...with McCain getting 15 more democrat districts than Obama got republican.

oh god.  I'll guess we'll just have to live in the past.

Thread is now about political memes.

You quote Kirk while at the same time crying about a big government victory? Kirk represents everything Americans hate about the Republican party. He was a dinosaur in his own time.

lol

-Whiteroom- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

lol

Extra Medium wrote:

The implications of Obama's win are going to be enormous for my industry.  I predict that many will lose their jobs in my sector, I just hope mine isn't one of them.  The liberals will have their day as we conservatives had ours, the fallout from this era may be ten fold worse than ours however.

"I rather lose with Socrates than win with Lenin."

lol

And which industry is that?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And which industry is that?

Oil and gas industry.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

oil, i think fracking, something Obama has actually touted as creating jobs in the US.

Hardly.  His veto of the Keystone killed thousands of jobs directly and tens of thousands in-directly.  Also, his environmental policies, while perhaps not publicly touted, are very much felt through increase pressure from the EPA.  I saw first hand how upper management reacted to the election, before October we had over 20 rigs drilling for us, in November before the election they had 5 more on standby ready to go, and after his election they cut those 5 rigs and another 4.  As far as FRACing is concerned, there is currently some litigation and bills being made to ban FRACing in certain areas and to potentially reveal the proprietary ingredients of the fracing fluids.  The increased pressure has slowed fracing and threatens to possibly ban it in some states, thus killing even more countless thousands of jobs.

On the subject of fracing (because I'm sure someone will inevitably scream that FRACing destroys everything it touches and is the most evil thing ever), it isn't as bad as the media has portrayed it to be.  Such fear and rejection is always present with new and"mysterious" technologies.  Most of you I'm sure, have gotten your information from watching people light their water on fire on Gasland or from idiots like Daryl Hannah.  I honestly believe in my very educated opinion, that the people you see lighting their water on fire are suffering because of 2 things.  1) a break in the surface liner casing that shields the water table from the drill hole AND/OR b) improper waste water disposal practices.   

I could elaborate if asked but I'm not going to derail the discussion that far if it isn't even wanted.

Extra Medium wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And which industry is that?

Oil and gas industry.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

oil, i think fracking, something Obama has actually touted as creating jobs in the US.

Hardly.

Are you saying it hasn't created jobs, or that obama didn't mention it in his state of the union address? Either way you're wrong.