StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) There has to be a viable 3rd party first. Not ever voting for them and ensuring that they remain locked out of the various avenues and ballot access isn't going to get one established.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) I in no way expect, or even believe it's possible for any voter to know everything about the candidates they support. I merely ask they know SOMEthing, even very basic things, versus nothing, or the opposite of what the person actually stands for. Somin's been writing about political/rational ignorance at Volokh for years. He makes some interesting points, even if I generally disagree.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) The first half is don't vote. The second half is get off of your ass and do something about it. But what positive effect does not-voting have? How does that actually change anything?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) Eh, they can kinda take part. If you live in a rock solid state for one of the two parties your vote means less than that of a swing state. Sad but true. But there's always numerous local and state elections and referendums. My father-in-law is the township commissioner where he lives, and he was just talking about how all of their programs focus very heavily on the seniors because that's who comes out and votes in off-year and spring elections. If more people from other demographics bothered to vote, local government would reflect their preferences more.

Y2HH @Y2HH Vote Obama! He passed OBAMACARE! #4moreyears #obamacare

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) I said the same thing on Facebook, and I rarely make status posts. My Status: "Seriously, take voting seriously or don't take part in the process just so you can say you did. If you don't know or understand the issues and you don't know what the candidates stand for, stay home." And I mean that. Voting may be a right, but people need to treat that right as a privilege, regardless of which candidates they choose. I find it sad that people go vote just so they can say they voted, but have no clue what they voted for or why...other than someone told them to do so. Yes, I realize I used seriously twice in that status...needed to be emphasized. Ilya Somin has a post up today at Volokh relating to this: http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/06/the-case-...u-are-ignorant/

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) FB political posts are awful. They can be goldmines for comedy but I never partake myself.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) I actually like the message a lot. Your civic duty is way bigger than just showing up at the polls every four years, though we can't even seem to handle that. I agree with what you say in this post, but that's not the message I got from the fb quote. That seemed like a boiler-plate "don't vote" message designed to discourage people from voting because the system is 'corrupt.' The idea that not-voting will actually somehow make the system less corrupt/dumb/whatever is pretty silly, unless you're actually advocating for revolution. edit: I say this with the caveat that I'm probably not going to vote in the House race because while Biggert's been following silly Republican policy the past several years, she's probably the least-disagreeable Republican in the House for me. Somewhat surprisingly to me, my wife received a call the other day from the IEA endorsing Biggert. Foster's embrace of Simpson-Bowles and his vote against cap-and-trade is enough to cost him my vote. If he were running against someone like Joe Walsh, I'd be voting for him.

(in honor of this year's election, I watched the '96 Treehouse of Horror on Halloween)

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) Hmm, who to take political advice from...half-baked wanna-be celebrities or Wall Street experts? Neither?

Not-voting isn't going to make it go away. That's ridiculous.

In relation to the Electoral College/gerrymandering discussion in the now-closed thread: http://vfdemo.idvsolutions.com/districtmojo/

Maybe I missed it upthread, but where are you helping, Reddy?

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) We begin a new tomorrow, tomorrow. How the hell could you want a President that says that? That was Colbert's SuperPAC's slogan

SHOULD WE GIVE THE PUPPIES FOOD LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE OR LET THEM STARVE?

Is that an actual ballot measure? That's a pretty loaded phrasing.

An Australian judge issued a strong ruling against Standard & Poors over the way they 'rated' MBS's. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...y-cpdo-edition/

from someone I know through another board. he works at NYU's hospital doing research.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) I figured this thread would be a good place to vent about this. So my friend joined a league with people he plays cards with. Its $205 entry, 10 teams and $2 for each transaction. I drafted and run the team and get half of anything we win. Its actually the team in the picture I posted with the dumb scoring. Anyway, these guys all know each other, I dont know any of them, they had a live draft and my friend communicated with me on the phone for our picks. So were off to a good start. Were 6-2-1 and have by far the most points. We also have had the high score 2 weeks which is worth $15 each time. When looking through some other teams to see about offering a trade I noticed two teams have the same owner, so I called my friend and asked what that was about. He said that a guy drafted a team and never paid so the commish, who already owns a team, paid an additional $205 and took control of the other team. Neither of us liked it but figured a 9 team league wouldnt work and one of the teams is bad so who cares. Fast forward to this week, the commish manually puts through a trade sending Brandon Marshall and Jared Cook from his bad team to his good team in exchange for Lance Moore and James Jones. Since he did it manually it didnt show up in our transactions feed. So another team notices it and calls him out on it. He desperately tries to defend the trade and said only one team had a problem with it, once everyone else sees it they all agree his two teams should not be trading with each other. His reasoning was the two players he traded score the same amount as Marshall combined so its fair. Note, this is a 60 year old man and yes he really said this. So a few more people politely explain that his two teams should not be trading with each other and as the commish he manually locks his two teams, says he is quitting and is letting the league run on autopilot, not even letting someone else run it. He also switched it from 6/10 teams making the playoffs to all 8 teams make the playoffs. Granted this isnt my money, but I do get half of anything we win, last year we finished third, but is this not the most ridiculous thing youve ever heard lol. http://puu.sh/1mOL4 theres a screen shot of his farewell message LOL

Even if you don't vote for President, there are still numerous other races on the state and local level.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) With the exception being 2004, right? I think the exit polling that year was horrible. I don't remember if the exit polls themselves were terrible or if it was just a weird demographic thing with more Dems voting earlier in the day, but they were definitely off.

The sample sizes don't need to be that large to get an accurate estimation.

Voter Suppression Enters the Home Stretch Florida arbitrarily closing polls in Democratic-heavy counties, Ohio changing provisional ballot rules at the last second.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) That's why I said, they should probably move to a proportional vote, and pass some laws preventing that gerrymandering you spoke about earlier. I'm not saying our current system is great. But at least it protects us from the blatantly misinformed/uninformed or stupid...at least, to some degree. States have to be broken into districts. How do you prevent gerrymandering? Isn't the makeup of the US and various state Houses important enough to fight gerrymandering?