Yeah it is extremely flawed. 20% of the popular vote? When has that happened? (I can't watch the videos as I am at work)
It hasn't. Was a hypothetical showing what could happen under the EC's rules.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah it is extremely flawed. 20% of the popular vote? When has that happened? (I can't watch the videos as I am at work)
Overall, a decent analysis. Some of their claims were off (like using the entire population as their basis for the electorate, which is actually just registered voters, vice everyone in the country), but overall, a good attempt to lay out the issues.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It hasn't, but it could.
The closest is John Quincy Adams who won only 30% of the popular vote, 11% less then Andrew Jackson. Won less electoral votes(99-84), less states(11-7) but still won the presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1824
The closest is John Quincy Adams who won only 30% of the popular vote, 11% less then Andrew Jackson. Won less electoral votes(99-84), less states(11-7) but still won the presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1824
That's a special case that won't ever be repeated.DrunkFace wrote:
It hasn't, but it could.
The closest is John Quincy Adams who won only 30% of the popular vote, 11% less then Andrew Jackson. Won less electoral votes(99-84), less states(11-7) but still won the presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1824
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Didn't we already have this conversation with feos immediately after the election? I bet he has some friends who are GOP operatives, coming from the military industrial complex and all.
If you're going to tinker with it at all then make it a popular vote. Anyones vote anywhere counts. It would completely eliminate battle ground states. I just don't see the downside to this, as opposed to the EC system we have now.
If you're going to tinker with it at all then make it a popular vote. Anyones vote anywhere counts. It would completely eliminate battle ground states. I just don't see the downside to this, as opposed to the EC system we have now.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-30 16:55:11)
The downside would be for people whose interests don't align with those in major population centers. Presidential candidates would cater to large population centers almost exclusively. Who cares about 100,000 farmers in Nebraska, if you can win 7 million in Chicago?Spearhead wrote:
Didn't we already have this conversation with feos immediately after the election? I bet he has some friends who are GOP operatives, coming from the military industrial complex and all.
If you're going to tinker with it at all then make it a popular vote. Anyones vote anywhere counts. It would completely eliminate battle ground states. I just don't see the downside to this, as opposed to the EC system we have now.
No one should.RAIMIUS wrote:
Who cares about 100,000 farmers in Nebraska?
OkayFEOS wrote:
Why do people seem to assume that just because a state went for a democrat that the population wants all their elected officials to be from that party (replace dem with republican--same question)?
It's a flawed assumption.
My point was, that instead of learning their lesson, the GOP is going to continue to shrink demographically until they become nothing but the party of the white south. They've already lost the North. They've lost the west, and have now lost Florida. Instead of changing their attitude, the GOP instead tries to reinstate Jim Crow and divide the electoral college points at the Congressional district level. My point was that they would eventually have to chop up all of the states they control to maintain their white-male-conservative coalition, something you or any other educated 12th grader couldve easily inferred from my post.
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
I do if you think every Republican voter is a white male.Spearhead wrote:
OkayFEOS wrote:
Why do people seem to assume that just because a state went for a democrat that the population wants all their elected officials to be from that party (replace dem with republican--same question)?
It's a flawed assumption.
My point was, that instead of learning their lesson, the GOP is going to continue to shrink demographically until they become nothing but the party of the white south. They've already lost the North. They've lost the west, and have now lost Florida. Instead of changing their attitude, the GOP instead tries to reinstate Jim Crow and divide the electoral college points at the Congressional district level. My point was that they would eventually have to chop up all of the states they control to maintain their white-male-conservative coalition, something you or any other educated 12th grader couldve easily inferred from my post.
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, only half of republicants are white males.Jay wrote:
I do if you think every Republican voter is a white male.
the other half is their brow-beaten, uneducated, parroting fox news watching wives.
I find it funny that everyone is talking about the death of the Republican party and how they're lost in the wilderness and if they don't change their ways they will become irrelevant in short order. People were saying the same exact thing about the Dems ten years ago, and it's not as if the Dems changed their politics in any way before they regained power. They'll fuck up in some epic way and the country will swing back to the Republicans again. Ebb and flow. Frankly, I think the Republicans are taking the correct tack in constantly hammering on the deficit issues, even though they were complicit in creating the problem in the first place. Economics has never been a strength for the Dems.
Anyway, if by some act of god, Feinstein's bill is passed and signed by Obama, I'd expect an even larger swing in the midterm elections than we normally see in the middle of a presidents second term.
Anyway, if by some act of god, Feinstein's bill is passed and signed by Obama, I'd expect an even larger swing in the midterm elections than we normally see in the middle of a presidents second term.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No.
the dems were lost in 1972, when McGovern lost to Nixon. they made a gradual comeback, nominated Carter, and after that setback built a base with the Clinton machine.
L2history
the dems were lost in 1972, when McGovern lost to Nixon. they made a gradual comeback, nominated Carter, and after that setback built a base with the Clinton machine.
L2history
A year after Gore lost, the Republicans controlled the entire government. There was much crying and bellyaching and soul searching and everyone said the Dems were a lost party until they latched onto the Iraq war as their means of hammering Bush (even though most of them had voted for the invasion).13urnzz wrote:
No.
the dems were lost in 1972, when McGovern lost to Nixon. they made a gradual comeback, nominated Carter, and after that setback built a base with the Clinton machine.
L2history
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
overwhelming majorityJay wrote:
I do if you think every Republican voter is a white male.Spearhead wrote:
OkayFEOS wrote:
Why do people seem to assume that just because a state went for a democrat that the population wants all their elected officials to be from that party (replace dem with republican--same question)?
It's a flawed assumption.
My point was, that instead of learning their lesson, the GOP is going to continue to shrink demographically until they become nothing but the party of the white south. They've already lost the North. They've lost the west, and have now lost Florida. Instead of changing their attitude, the GOP instead tries to reinstate Jim Crow and divide the electoral college points at the Congressional district level. My point was that they would eventually have to chop up all of the states they control to maintain their white-male-conservative coalition, something you or any other educated 12th grader couldve easily inferred from my post.
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
Billary voted in favor of war.
what now, libertine?
what now, libertine?
the year after W left, the dems controlled the gov't. There was much crying and bellyaching and soul searching and everyone said the republicants were a lost party until they put the t-baggers in the house. big fucking deal, the country's going to hell in a handbasket.
Of course it is. Never said otherwise. Spearhead is just young and hasn't lived through enough elections to not believe the hyperbole about the death of political parties following elections
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
noone can argue the hyper-partisanship that exists today is evident in any other era of american governance. Americans used to act in the best interest of America, and today the politicos act in the best interest of what won't get them primaried.
fuckers.
fuckers.
B-B-BacktrackingJay wrote:
Of course it is. Never said otherwise. Spearhead is just young and hasn't lived through enough elections to not believe the hyperbole about the death of political parties following elections
blatant posturing should be rewarded with term limits, we should institute a draft.
open a phone book with your eyes closed, put your finger on a name and say 'Guess what fucker? you just won a four year trip to DC!'
open a phone book with your eyes closed, put your finger on a name and say 'Guess what fucker? you just won a four year trip to DC!'
I disagree completely. The country has always been hyper-partisan ever since its birth. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans hated each other. Democrats hated Republicans so much that they started a Civil War over it. High office attracts hyper-competitive people that will do anything they can to win. It's just the nature of the beast.13urnzz wrote:
noone can argue the hyper-partisanship that exists today is evident in any other era of american governance. Americans used to act in the best interest of America, and today the politicos act in the best interest of what won't get them primaried.
fuckers.
All the talk of bipartisanship, and the fake nostalgia that the talking heads spout, is simply meant to make Republicans in Congress feel guilty about blocking the ruling parties legislative agenda. Good I say (and I would say the same if Republicans were in power). Bipartisanship only happens when we the people are about to get fucked: see PATRIOT Act, the billion dollar pork barrel subsidies to farmers and green energy firms, NDAA, and of course, the Iraq war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who's backtracking? Learn to read.Macbeth wrote:
B-B-BacktrackingJay wrote:
Of course it is. Never said otherwise. Spearhead is just young and hasn't lived through enough elections to not believe the hyperbole about the death of political parties following elections
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
whoops thought that was a response to my graph. Fits perfectly as one from you.
wow that graphMacbeth wrote:
overwhelming majorityJay wrote:
I do if you think every Republican voter is a white male.Spearhead wrote:
Okay
My point was, that instead of learning their lesson, the GOP is going to continue to shrink demographically until they become nothing but the party of the white south. They've already lost the North. They've lost the west, and have now lost Florida. Instead of changing their attitude, the GOP instead tries to reinstate Jim Crow and divide the electoral college points at the Congressional district level. My point was that they would eventually have to chop up all of the states they control to maintain their white-male-conservative coalition, something you or any other educated 12th grader couldve easily inferred from my post.
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
wow
Sorry that's not even close to true.RAIMIUS wrote:
The downside would be for people whose interests don't align with those in major population centers. Presidential candidates would cater to large population centers almost exclusively. Who cares about 100,000 farmers in Nebraska, if you can win 7 million in Chicago?Spearhead wrote:
Didn't we already have this conversation with feos immediately after the election? I bet he has some friends who are GOP operatives, coming from the military industrial complex and all.
If you're going to tinker with it at all then make it a popular vote. Anyones vote anywhere counts. It would completely eliminate battle ground states. I just don't see the downside to this, as opposed to the EC system we have now.
Large population centres (All cities with 300,000 or more people) account for about 16% of your population, not even close to winning an election. You have far too many small cities, large towns and rural areas for them to be ignored. Each individual town of 50-100k might not get the same attention as New york, but then again, why should they?
As things are now a handful of large swing states get a majority of attention while the smaller states and the bulk of the population are ignored.