Soxbadger

Yeah I know open borders is an argument I doubt Ill ever win, but damn would it be great. And why do I hate the word libertarian, is it to close to librarian for me? Im just not sure.

If that was their platform, probably haha. I guess if they wanted to ban immigrants or gay marriage, Id still have to begrudgingly vote against my self interest, but if they are willing to be cool and give out freedoms, Im willing to give them a chance.

lol Thats irrelevant. You can keep believing that its voting for free stuff, but the difference is social issues. As soon as Republicans get back to small govt on things like, drugs, sex and other sins, the quicker our country gets back to having some freedoms. The problem unfortunately is people are to busy telling me what I can and cant spend my money on. Why do they care if I spend a few thousand a year on drugs and abortions, its my damn money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) "being hispanic" doesn't nullify the immigration issue. Actually having policy that Hispanics like will nullify the immigration issue. Which is why you should keep an eye on Jeb Bush. His handlers were smart enough to keep him out of this election, but he could be tough in the future.

Cubans are already the most pro-Republican hispanic minority. Not sure that Rubio would resonate with Mexican or other latino immigrants. (edit) Jeb Bush on the other hand is married to Columba Gallo, who he met in Mexico. Right now Id say he is a pretty strong 2016 candidate, and purposefully did not run this election.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) I never said the electoral college was perfect, just nationwide as long as states have their own government a popular vote isn't a better solution. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, obviously EC has been controversial for 200 years, I just dont like a system where 1 persons vote is 4x more important than another persons. To me that seems unfair. And if Im going to be convinced to do something that unfair, Id need to have a really good reason.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:13 PM) Yeah but nobody is going to agree to get rid of states having their own identity and I wouldn't be for that either, it is nice you can live in the same country but find an area that is more suited for your beliefs or whatever reason. As long as we have state governments which is going to be for the foreseeable future a popular vote doesn't make any sense. So does a popular governor vote make no sense because we have counties?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) Well you could change the EC votes. I have no idea how they determine that. Its because the electoral college is a bastardized system that's only purpose is to ensure that an establishment candidate wins. Its also the same problem that occurs in the House of Reps (at least the argument is that thousands of reps are unwieldy.) But the main argument against the EC is that it disenfranchises most Americans at the expense of a very few states (I havent done the math in a while but the greatest extremes are between small states and big states) where a person in a small state has almost 5x as much impact as a person in a big state. I just dont see how that is fair at all, which is why I want a 1 to 1 vote.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say. No they do. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepolitical...es-By-State.htm Wyoming 3 electoral votes, population 565,000 = 1 electoral vote for every 188k people. NY 29 electoral votes, population 19.3 mil = 1 electoral vote for every 665k people. In order for NY to be as represented as Wyoming they would need to have 102 electoral votes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) ? You said you though the difference between the parties was social issues, and i'm giving you a big voting block of the party that is the same as republicans. Democrats might care MORE about OTHER issues and ignore the social ones, but it's not exactly 0% on one side and 100% on the other. And I have agreed with you. Go back to my posts at the beginning of the day. I said it's time the GOP moves on from gay marriage and abortion. The battles have been lost. You can run an apathetic position on those issues, but you sure as hell can't be all vocally against them anymore. I said the main difference. And you are using 1 block, in a very unique situation (President that is one of them). I was referring to mainstream Democrats, who could be swayed one way or the other. There are a certain amount of Republicans/Democrats that wont change no matter what. Those arent the people you are going to win and they really arent the majority of the party. Id say if you ask around most Democrats would say that it was abortion, immigration, etc that caused them to vote against Romney. Very few would say that it was taxes, etc.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) I agree, I'd say the "don't hang our poor, disabled, unemployed, immigrants, minorities etc out to dry" message is more important than the social stuff Well my idea isnt to change the Republican party into the Democratic Jr party. Its to present a party that can compete with the Democrats. I dont think fundamentally changing will win for the Republicans. They just need to kill their big govt social ideas and stick with small govt.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. They dont even comprise 50% of the Democratic party. And this isnt about why people vote for Democrats, is why Democrats dont vote for Republicans. And specifically the Democrats I am referring to our professionals, academics, and others. You dont have to believe me, but if the Republicans dont change that area, they wont win. I really believe that.

Done

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state. And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!" In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.) Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism.

And regardless of electoral college or direct vote, the President is likely going to want to keep the power for himself. Based on your own statements states rights are being eroded away, and the current system is electoral college. It just makes no difference to states rights. The only thing it does, is it completely bastardizes the Presidential election into a race where most people's vote really didnt mean much. And those people are mainly the minority party in a given state. Which is another problem, because the electoral college is winner take all in the state, it actually doesnt reflect the states real attitude. Electoral college, no electoral college, it wont change states rights. All it will do is change the election and force candidates to appeal to all people, which should mean all states. No longer can the Democrats just punt the confederacy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) Interesting you say this because that's a problem in most states, including Illinois. Tally up every non-Chicagoan vote and you still can't beat the Chicago vote for governor. Hence why 95% of the policy initiatives in the state are done with Chicago/Chicago Metro area in mind. If thats a problem then people should be arguing for more electoral colleges. Less direct voting. What I see is that urban areas are growing because that is where people are choosing to live. It makes sense that the politics should shift to where people are. It does not make sense to hold onto an antiquated notion of agrarian ideals, just because at one point that was something popular. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) The argument is things change, right? States rights have become an endangered concept more and more as time as gone on and we have received a stronger and stronger federal government that is willing to take extreme measures to keep influence state law. The extent that states have been marginalized in the last 100 years or so is pretty extreme. I agree states should get more rights. But that is from Congress, not from the President. And unfortunately no one in Federal Congress wants to give up their power. Id love for congress to vote that guns, drugs, etc were all state rights. But thats not going to change, regardless of how the President is voted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends. And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct. And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument. Can you name an example of the tyrannical urban class ruling the rural? I just dont see it happening, and I dont even know what past President youd call a "rural" President. There is just no way to give the rural people more say in the system, unless you change the system to make urban votes meaningless. Otherwise population always rules, and urban has beat agrarian. Its not a contest, 200 years ago it may have been, but in the 21st century urban is what won, and there is no changing that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) For the record, I was never saying states don't matter. I have said that for the purpose of electing the President, a single national office, states should not matter. There is a huge difference. Exactly. Especially as electoral college wasnt even a states right issue when it was started.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) If the lines are imaginary, why the hell are we spending billions to support those lines? Either they matter, or they don't. We do all have local (City/County/Township) governments. If you are saying that states don't matter, take it to its logical conclusion. For my two cents, historically we are the United STATES of America, and our history is such that states rights are an important historical consideration. There are many things that are constitutionally granted to the individual state. I have no problem with our elections reflecting that. Just to be clear, Im not arguing against states rights. I have no intention of stripping the rights in the senate or house that give them a larger impact. What I am arguing against is the electoral college, and saying that states rights are not the main reason for the electoral college. That the actual intention of the electoral college is to deprive regular individuals the ability to directly elect the president, which is why I am against the electoral college. They are 2 completely different arguments. But for some reason the group that supports the electoral college has been able to cloak their support as "states rights" when really its not. I am generally pro-states rights, its just different with the President. As I said, if this model makes sense, why dont counties elect the Governor? Why should a county in southern Illinois not get better representation than Cook? Why does each Illinois vote count the same? The answer, because the electoral college is about direct voting, not about the rights of small states, minorities, etc.

And in case you dont believe me, Factcheck.org doesnt even mention states rights as a reason for the electoral college: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reaso...ctoral-college/ The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." I previously linked the federalist paper that fully explains it. But this was to keep down regular joes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) If states really don't matter, let's get rid of the state level governance, as it is a waste of money then. Get rid of all of the boundaries, rules, etc. Either you have to honor that states are there, or don't. You can't rely on states for somethings, and then ignore them for others. Disagree completely. The US is to large to govern well with 1 body, thus you need smaller entities to govern smaller sections of land. That being said, the President is a position that governs all people, and thus a state line should make no difference on his selection. If I live in Southern IL across from Missouri, should my vote really be that different? Just because there is an imaginary line on the Mississippi?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) i think turnout may go up in the first year of a popular vote, but then people will realize that if they live in a small state, the issues that matter specifically to them will stop getting addressed and they'll become apathetic. that's my belief, however, as you pointed out... i'm not technically an expert... just my dad. who i've known and spoken with in detail for the last 26 years of my life. Ok maybe not those first few years. Im not sure what your dad would say, but I think if he started arguing Electoral College was for states rights, hed be arguing against history. Perhaps check out Federalist 68: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp Youll notice Hamilton was the one for electoral college, he was anti-small state. The electoral college small state myth is a good one, it really is impressive how long people have bought it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red. PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons The problem is that you are starting with a premise that I do not find necessary. I dont care about states losing or gaining power, states are just imaginary boundaries that were drawn up X amount of years ago. What matters to me is the people in the state. And thus the people in NY who are Republican should have a say just as much as the people who are Republican in Ohio. And the Democrats in ND should have a say, just like the Democrats in Florida. The vote of the minority in the state should not be meaningless, they should have some impact, they should be able to choose. The entire idea of the electoral college is antiquated and unacceptable. If the electoral college was smart, then why do we not have counties elect Governors, or alderman select mayors? Why do we directly elect the Senate now (used to be by the state)? Because there is no reason to put up an invisible barrier between the people and their choice. If you want to argue for the electoral college, be my guest, argue that the regular population is not smart enough to make the choice and therefore we need a group of elites to make sure that the "right" person is picked. Because as I am sure you are aware, the electorate doesnt have to do what you voted. I am sure you would be 100% in support of the EC if it turned out the NY Dem reps actually vote for Romney and he won the election, even though the voters of NY said otherwise. If you like that system, be my guest. But this isnt about protecting small states or big states, its about preventing direct election and keeping a check on people in case they do something that the powers that be disagree with. I find that unacceptable.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) you're just wrong man. With that type of sound logic I think NSS just needs to say uncle. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion. I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind. Well some people dont want to admit that there is actually a very large Republican presence in metro areas. They would rather believe that Democrats will always rule in the metro areas because, I dont know, I guess because they only have looked at elections since Clinton, and dont really have a firm grasp on the fact that US parties shift ideologically and that 20 years from now Republicans could be the dominant metro party.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:45 PM) It would. That's why I'm saying while I don't think the EC is perfect, and could probably be tweaked for better representation, I'm not ready to get rid of it and just end up with the polar opposite of what we have not without actually fixing anything. Unless you think that 1 vote 1 person is fixing something, and then you actually are fixing the problem of unproportional representation.