Soxbadger

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) i didn't say they don't have metro areas, but they in NO way compare to LA/NYC/Chicago If you think those 3 cities can control the US popular vote, there is nothing I can say. I dont even believe they account for 10% of the US population, and even at their most drastic splits, it would be 70/30. Big cities have diverse points of view. You cant just put them in the Democratic column. From 72'-88 Cali and Il voted Republican in every election. Its arguable but for Perot, it might have continued.

Im sorry I meant that Bloomberg was voted in as a Republican. I could have just said Giuliani.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) Right now Ohioans, Floridians, Virginians and Tarheels votes are more important than ALL of ours. Is everyone ok with that? And none of those states have metro areas according to Reddy. You are dead Miami, Cleveland, Orlando, Cincinnati

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) ??? it's... not... 50/50 in NY... it's very heavily liberal. Last I checked Bloomberg is a Republican, or is that not true? Just because a southern republican cant win NY, doesnt mean a northern republican cant.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) which battleground state had any major metropolitan ares this time around? NY, CA, IL are never in the discussion. The battlegrounds are smaller states. Florida Ohio Colorado I assume I dont need to name the cities. You can also count Virginia and NC, if youd like.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Ok let me try and be clear about this. if there are 9 million people in NYC alone, and 500,000 people TOTAL in Wyoming, whose issues are going to be MORE important in the minds of the candidates? It depends, what are my %'s in each state. If its 50/50 in NY no matter what, and its 75/25 in Wyoming, Wyoming is way more important to get closer to 50/50.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority! They already are. Electoral college being removed does not change this. All it changes is that if you live in a state where you are a huge political minority, you can still impact the national race.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) you're all missing something huge. with the electoral college, small states HAVE A SAY! They have electoral votes that MATTER (read: Iowa for instance) In a popular vote, Iowa won't matter. ND won't matter, no small state will matter. So when they don't matter, fewer people will turn out to vote. When that happens, the electorate skews heavily to the urban areas. When THAT happens, Democrats win every time. This is just a false premise that keeps getting argued but makes no sense. A person in a small state had a more proportional say by popular vote 49% to 49%, than by electoral vote 300 to 200. If more people had turned out in ND, SD, Alabama, etc, Romney may have won the popular vote, but those votes meant 0 to the electoral college. The only way any state has a "say" is if they happen to be a state where there is a split and it happens to be an election where that split may tip the scales. Even then, the small states "say" is definitively less than the big states. Which is why everyone talked about Ohio and Florida, and no one really cared about NH, because there 2 votes only mattered in a very small circumstance, that is completely out of the states control. Unless you think states should pretend to be battle grounds, to get more exposure and get to feel like "I had a say". QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so. Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that. It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter". North Dakota and New York are vastly different geographically, it has nothing to do with the size of their state or population. Its just like saying that in Illinois people in Chicago dont have much in common with people who live south of Springfield. But that doesnt mean that we should change the vote for Governor to be by county so that we can come up with some "fair" model where people in one county have proportionally more say because their county has less people. Im not saying anyone is less important. I am actually saying that everyone should be EQUALLY important. 1 person, 1 vote.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) They can still give more weight to the smaller/less populated states with the EC in effect to counteract what you just mentioned. Without the EC, they lose all such control. Why would we be giving more weight to the smaller states in the Presidential election? Why should less people have more say? They already get proportionally more weight in the legislature. They already have the senate where even they get equal, regardless of size. I just see no reason why the President should be elected by the states. The President should be the 1 check, that the people get. Why do the people get 0 direct check on the system?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) But 50 years from now, the population of these cities are going to quadruple, if not more. At that point, they and they alone will control the vote. If that happens it wont matter if its popular or electoral vote, the cities are going to control. You already see it tipping in states like Virginia and NC, where the urban base has grown and the voting pattern no longer reflects the heart of the confederacy. Even Texas is going to start moving because the metro centers are going to grow faster. The reason that urban areas dont control right now is just a quirk in the population dynamics of the US. I believe the south is growing faster than the north, but right now the population hasnt tipped the south, so they are gaining electoral votes for Republicans, but their political identity is actually shifting the other way. Its just delaying the inevitable, when you have a system based on voting, the larger population is going to win more times than not. Thus if urban is the larger population, urban should win more than not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Well, if we're starting over, it's time to readjust the roles of local/state v. federal government! Gotta start somewhere. I have no problem redefining the role of govt so that it makes sense for a modern era. This isnt the 18th century anymore, it makes no sense that we are bound by that logic.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Because it's the United STATES of America. Individual states have individual laws/rules/taxes, etc...all which affect them differently, and that has to be assessed. States elect presidents, not people. And I find that unnecessary. /shrugs This isnt 1770 and Im trying to convince Maryland to join the cause against the British, and they are fearful that Virginia will monopolize the US, so I have to completely kowtow to the small states. Time to take it back.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. Nah the Republican party will just be forced to become more moderate. At one point in history someone said "The Republican party will never lose the state of Illinois."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them. Why arent they just Americans? 1 Americans vote located in North Dakota equals 1 Americans vote in NY. North Dakota is already over represented in legislature.

North Dakota matters the exact amount its supposed to matter, not very much. I believe if you compare population to electoral votes small states are over-represented. States are just mythical lines on the ground. If it was to move to a popular vote, most of the campaigning would be done in major urban areas, because its just more bang for your buck. I personally think any system where a vote in 1 state is less important than a vote in another state is silly (and that is not based on battle ground, that is based on electoral/population). So im in favor of popular vote election.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) There is nothing in baseball equivalent to an electoral poll. You can pretty clearly ask a person, and then sum up multiple persons totals to get an accurate predictor of what an election is going to look like. It is a simple yes or no question being asked, because realistically there are two candidate options out there. Baseball is no where near that simple, and has nothing anywhere near this sort of a predictive nature, it did everyone would already know the 2013 World Series winner. I agree, an equivalent in baseball would be if he ran a prediction of who would be MVP and was getting data from the people who vote on MVP. But baseball stats and election stats have a completely different nature. Because its not about calling A-Rod and asking him if hes going to hit .300 this year, and then determining whether hes telling the truth and whether hell actually show up to hit.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) The fact that the Republican part is shocked that people voted for more people's rights regarding social issues like abortion and marriage equality instead of for their economic plan shows how out of touch they really are. Young people came out in mass to vote for Obama primarily for those reasons. Unless the GOP softens up their stance in no-win issues like those they are going to be behind the 8-ball. And even worse for them is that there is very little indication that people in the age group of 30-40 are becoming less socially liberal as they get older.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) Maybe they can get Illinois State on the schedule to strengthen their SOS. Lets not get ahead of ourselves, first start with a directional school.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) I think by looking at this as urban vs rural, you are missing the key element that has risen dramatically since the 60's and 70's: suburbia and exurbia. That is where the battle is in the future, if you you are thinking in terms of geography. I am using a very broad generalization to make the point. I could spend thousands of pages discussing specific trends etc, I just was using the most simple overboard generalization. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College. Im fine with popular vote. I just think that if you want to complain about it, the time to do it is 4 years before the election, not the night of, when youre just saying it because you think your candidate would win that way. Do I think today Trump wants the popular vote? Of course not, he just wanted it for that split second he thought it would give his candidate the win.

But even that choice is for those who make over $250k which is not 50% of America. And then of the people making $250k, some of them are going to pick social interests over money (I personally would burn money than vote against my social interests). Economics isnt great for a party to hang their hat on because its too fickle, and often is related to the times, not to the actual policy. In my opinion its a simple fix, really be about small govt. That means less govt in marriage, less govt in drugs, less govt in sex, less govt in immigration, less govt in the workplace, less govt period. If the Republicans could run a candidate like that, 2016 could be really interesting.

The Republican model is fundamentally flawed and is currently playing a losing game. This is nothing more than an extension of agrarian v urban models that were first seen in the Hamilton/Jefferson era. Generally the US should get more diverse and become more urban. As long as the Republican party of the South wants to flip the bird to the urban population, they are always going to be starting from behind. Even Mitt Romney, a businessman former Governor of a northern state, had to completely disavow every plan that would have made him dangerous to Obama, just so that he could solidify the Republican core. On Fox news last night, they had some people who got it. But there were others who just seemed to think that it was a bad campaign and that if Romney had been more tactical he could have won. And its true Romney could have won, but his path would have been a hell of a lot easier if he could actually threaten in a state like California or New York. And its not like Republicans dont win there, its just Southern Republicans dont. The model clearly shows you can punt the Confederacy and still win more times than not. What should be even more telling for the Republicans is that they havent even nominated a Presidential candidate who was born in a confederate state (at least not post WWII and I was to lazy to go back further.) The closest (to actually being a southerner) was GWB, but hes a pretty big exception as he is a legacy of pretty influential northern Republicans. They really they just need to stop with the big govt social ideas, otherwise Id expect a bigger defeat in 2016, as the economy will likely be better and the country will be more diverse.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:17 AM) The GOP are not anti-Latino. I can only assume he is talking about immigration. The message has been pro legal immigration. I was born in Ireland and immigrated here through the same legal immigration process that others have used no matter of race, religion, or country of origin. As an immigrant I support immigration. Sure would I have loved to have my entire family over here, absolutely. But it didn't work out. Their situation is just as poor and dire as any poor country. Just as my families was. I think your family should be able to come to the US. We shouldnt be denying people access to our country. QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:48 AM) Not trying to anger anybody, just stand up for God. Notice both candidates mentioned God a lot in their speeches tonite. How do people like Bill Maher accept this?? How do those on here who don't believe in God react to this?? Maher mocks anybody who says there is a God. Kudos to both Obama and Romney for not being afraid of religion!!! It doesnt bother me. Many people believe in god and go to church. I have no problem with that. Just dont force me to live my life by religious values is all I ask.

The guys on fox news really dont believe that there is a fundamental issue, this was just a tactical issue and as recently as last week Romney was winning easy. Its just odd.

Which is why Im fine with a small step first. Just legalize marijuana see what happens. No reason to jump into the deep end. As much as I hate to say it, its really just hard to justify lsd/mushrooms etc. No matter how fun they might be, they are just so dangerous in the wrong hands.

Rove is still trying to spin this, kind of funny.