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

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs, you've obviously never seen his Twitter messages.

Stop showing your ignorance.

The more hate he gets, the more ratings he gets, the more money he has.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/40306 … siness.htm

Fox ratings have benefited massively from the Obama Presidency. The channel's conservative hard-line rhetoric and the continuous attacks on thePresident conveyed large part of the Republican audience that can't stand Obama and his 'socialist' policies...

In the last quarter shares of Murdoch's media conglomerate company News Corp. raised 2.4 per cent, Murdoch reported in an earnings call with analysts earlier this week.

So your argument is that Murdoch doesn't really hate democrats, he's just happy to get ratings and it's an act?

What are you smoking?

FatherTed wrote:

a wild facebook quote appears;

today I would like to offer my commiserations to all the hard working, educated Canadians out there. After all you will soon be swamped by all the "fair weather Americans" who said they were moving to Canada if Obama gets in.... luckily most of that lot probably aren't too sure where you are so I suggest hanging around the borders wearing sombreroes and speaking spanish.

I recommend the Canadians build a long and tall fence, set up posses of armed vigilantes to guard that fence, and pass a law allowing them to stop and deport anyone who looks like they could be 'muricans - those who haven't already been shot at least.

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Again, though, without a consistent, non-partisan and in a perfect world automated system to draw electoral boundaries, it's extremely sketchy. The electoral collage might be dodgy, but at least it's systematic.

People complain about gerrymandering, but the fact is that urban areas are mostly democrat, rural areas are mostly republican. It's based on population, so you can't really get away from that, regardless of how you draw the boundaries.

Also, that's what courts are for when people challenge the district boundaries.

My understanding is that when all is said and done, Democrats will have more votes for the HoR than the Republicans. Wouldn't be a problem if it were a small majority for the Republicans, but this is not. This is a pretty solid majority and it suggests to me - though I haven't done the numbers - that it would take a pretty strong popular vote towards the Democrats for the House to become "even".

I mean, it's a question of being representative. If you have a 50-50 split but distributed so one side wins a handful of seats by huge margins but the other side wins many more seats by small margins - so despite it being evenly divided, one side has a significant leg-up - is that representative?

Fair point about the courts, but I still think the best way to do it would be to take politicians out of the process entirely.

The Republicans still control the House. Not sure what you're referring to. Keep in mind, I'm merely talking about aligning electoral college votes to how the vote for president goes by congressional district (not congressional race).

Reciprocity wrote:

FEOS wrote:

People live in those districts...otherwise, the districts would be much, much smaller.

two-thirds of oregon is one district because nobody lives there but fucking mormons too dumb to move to idaho and half-starved cows.  they're lucky to get any vote.

It's that big because the population density requires it to be that big to make the district's population meet the rough average, per the census. Just like the district(s) associated with Portland and other urban areas are much smaller.

FEOS wrote:

The Republicans still control the House. Not sure what you're referring to. Keep in mind, I'm merely talking about aligning electoral college votes to how the vote for president goes by congressional district (not congressional race).

lmao.  You're only saying this because it's obvious Romney would've won.  You might as well have a parliamentary system. 

The GOP benefited from the redistricting after the 2010 census.  That is why they held on to the house.  That's really not being disputed by anyone.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

I dunno, some look butthurt, some are crying, but others look like they're just exchanging "let's go home" glances.

I think this was the most confusing image

My guess is Wisconsin?

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Republicans still control the House. Not sure what you're referring to. Keep in mind, I'm merely talking about aligning electoral college votes to how the vote for president goes by congressional district (not congressional race).

lmao.  You're only saying this because it's obvious Romney would've won.  You might as well have a parliamentary system. 

The GOP benefited from the redistricting after the 2010 census.  That is why they held on to the house.  That's really not being disputed by anyone.

I don't know if he would've won or not. Keep in mind that it's still (more closely than now) tied to the popular vote, but by district, rather than "winner take all"--which, IIRC, people have complained about since at least 2000.

And again--I'm not talking about congressional races, I'm talking about using the congressional districts (geographic distribution) to allocate Presidential electoral votes in the Presidential race. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

The number of electors for a given state are determined by the number of congressional districts in that state, plus two additional for the senators. All I'm proposing here is that those same electoral votes are allocated based on the popular vote in their corresponding district. The two senator-related electoral votes would go to the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote for the state. How does that favor Republicans? It favors neither, and more closely aligns the electoral college count with the popular vote, while still maintaining the intent of the college, which was to attempt to give rural areas (relatively) the same influence as highly urbanized areas in the Presidential election.

It would force the candidates to campaign in (at least) all 48 contiguous states, minus a handful, as already stated. It would mean the outcome in one or two states wouldn't determine the outcome early in the vote counting. It would mean the candidates would have to get their message out to a larger proportion of the population than they do now. How is it a bad thing?

Spearhead wrote:

I understand your point.  This way electoral votes would be divided within the state.  So Florida would be, for example, something like 13-12 instead of all 27 going to one candidate.  Though it would still be vulnerable to gerrymandering.

Is that any more dangerous than the current shortfalls of the system?

At least under my proposal, there is a mechanism to contest any attempts at gaming the system (ie, court cases against redistricting).

Fact; the top ten, most educated states voted democrat in the last election.
Fact; 9/10 of the least educated states voted republican. (nevada went democrat, thus proving that legalized betting doesn't make you smarter, just makes you better at determining a winner).
Fact; the democrats had more votes cast for the house of representatives. Thanks to gerrymandering, the republicans hold a majority in the house.
Fact; the democrats won 38% more of the single, white, woman vote, proving that once you go black, you never go back.
Fact; America once again proved that despite a big bloc of voters voting against their self interest, that there is still a a concerned citizen that will rush to their aid and help them out of a potential disaster.

gg America! you may enjoy entertainers like hannity and limbaugh, but you've proven that their brand diarrhea has no place in practical matters.
I'm proud that the average citizen rejected rick santorum's assertion that America doesn't need higher eduction, and that the democrats assertion that a way to a better future is through an education for the 21st century. the republicans are proving to be like the Beach Boys - their fans are dieing out.

R I P Beach Boys.

13urnzz wrote:

Fact; the top ten, most educated states voted democrat in the last election.
Fact; 9/10 of the least educated states voted republican. (nevada went democrat, thus proving that legalized betting doesn't make you smarter, just makes you better at determining a winner).
Fact; the democrats had more votes cast for the house of representatives. Thanks to gerrymandering, the republicans hold a majority in the house.
Fact; the democrats won 38% more of the single, white, woman vote, proving that once you go black, you never go back.
Fact; America once again proved that despite a big bloc of voters voting against their self interest, that there is still a a concerned citizen that will rush to their aid and help them out of a potential disaster.

gg America! you may enjoy entertainers like hannity and limbaugh, but you've proven that their brand diarrhea has no place in practical matters.
I'm proud that the average citizen rejected rick santorum's assertion that America doesn't need higher eduction, and that the democrats assertion that a way to a better future is through an education for the 21st century. the republicans are proving to be like the Beach Boys - their fans are dieing out.

R I P Beach Boys.

Thought you voted for Reagan?  Now you remind of some 60 year old limousine liberal woman.

Spearhead wrote:

Thought you voted for Reagan?  Now you remind of some 60 year old limousine liberal woman.

i not only voted for Reagan (May Peace Be Upon His Soul). i voted for bush, and would've voted for dole if i wasn't in jail (was totally exonerated by the justice system after the record was expunged).

i actively campaigned for Huntsman this year (ok, i sent a $5 gift card that i only used once, for a tall boy which would have left enough to at least buy a bumper sticker) because i believe still in an America that supports freedom, education, and fiscal responsibility.

Jon Huntsman, severely conservative as he is, believes that there is such a thing as "science", "higher eduction", the "separation of church and state", and even the radical idea that you should at least pay for the financial commitments that you have made, and that you shouldn't make those commitments if you are unwilling to pay for them.

even i could have told him the fucktards that vote in republican primaries don't believe there is such a thing as science or eduction.

and when it comes down to it, republicans don't want to pay for their campaign promises any more than democrats do.

Spearhead wrote:

I was considering joining the GOP to vote for Huntsman, but unfortunately he quit the race before he made it to my state.  Much respect. 

Hopefully he will run in 2016.  I'll vote for him.  I mean it.

he has the background, experience, and convictions that any republican candidate would be proud of. he has 2 fatal flaws that won't get him by the republican primaries, even after they got their ass kicked in this general election - he believes in science, and he served his country as an ambassador in [GASP!] a democratic administration.

republicans of today are so fucking stupid that i can't relate to them.

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Republicans still control the House. Not sure what you're referring to. Keep in mind, I'm merely talking about aligning electoral college votes to how the vote for president goes by congressional district (not congressional race).

lmao.  You're only saying this because it's obvious Romney would've won.  You might as well have a parliamentary system. 

The GOP benefited from the redistricting after the 2010 census.  That is why they held on to the house.  That's really not being disputed by anyone.

I don't know if he would've won or not. Keep in mind that it's still (more closely than now) tied to the popular vote, but by district, rather than "winner take all"--which, IIRC, people have complained about since at least 2000.

And again--I'm not talking about congressional races, I'm talking about using the congressional districts (geographic distribution) to allocate Presidential electoral votes in the Presidential race. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

The number of electors for a given state are determined by the number of congressional districts in that state, plus two additional for the senators. All I'm proposing here is that those same electoral votes are allocated based on the popular vote in their corresponding district. The two senator-related electoral votes would go to the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote for the state. How does that favor Republicans? It favors neither, and more closely aligns the electoral college count with the popular vote, while still maintaining the intent of the college, which was to attempt to give rural areas (relatively) the same influence as highly urbanized areas in the Presidential election.

It would force the candidates to campaign in (at least) all 48 contiguous states, minus a handful, as already stated. It would mean the outcome in one or two states wouldn't determine the outcome early in the vote counting. It would mean the candidates would have to get their message out to a larger proportion of the population than they do now. How is it a bad thing?

I think the point is that it's exactly the geographic boundaries, not the congressional races, which are the problem. Don't get me wrong, a highly localised seat-by-seat campaign has some big benefits, but it is extremely susceptible to gerrymandering and that could severely undermine confidence in the electoral process. It doesn't favour Republicans per se - it favours whoever gets to draw the district boundaries in that state. Perhaps you mean some sort of Hare-Clark quota system to try and alleviate the issue, but I don't know how that would work without the preferential bit and a one-vote-per-district basis. And it would be an unholy clusterfuck by definition.

It's also worth noting that, at least here (though we have two major, major differences on top of the seat-by-seat system which could render the comparison moot) it's actually more common for the popular vote loser to win the election. So it's not necessarily true that it'll avoid that possibility.

For the record, on a fairly crude analysis, if you applied Obama's 2.5%-3.0% national popular vote margin to a model where the electoral votes are distributed on a district-by-district basis, Obama would have just won.

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-09 22:40:56)