StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Going back to this, this is about the best argument I've ever had posed to me in favor of a national popular vote. My worry on this is that while it currently seems like a good idea, it may not be in the future as the few mega cities we have are built bigger and bigger, and at that point, they alone would control the office of presidency, quite possibly for one party or another (or perhaps a new party we haven't heard of yet). I don't know about you, but I'd dread living in a Union where nothing but Democrats are voted into office year after year after year (this also goes for Republicans, could you imagine Bush administration after Bush administration?) We already have this to some degree on the city level, and it's a disaster. Sometimes, uprooting a party and removing the complacent corruption that set in over the years is necessary...I fear in a system where major metropolitan areas most likely decide presidential elections would produce just that. Also, while we may agree with Democratic agendas now (or Republicans), things change...and the future is hard to see. My worry is that we're blind of the future, and implementing this system could be a disaster. Then again, what we have now is already a disaster...so...maybe you have a good point. Do you have some data on rural/suburban/urban population %'s over time?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) Moving to a pure popular vote doesn't fix that, either...it would probably make it worse. Short term, these states may still matter...but as populations explode in major metropolitan areas (and they are), in 30-40 years, no other states would matter. Just because that system might work now, doesn't mean it will continue working very well in the future. Unfortunately, once they implement it, it would never go away again. Ohio appears to be "the" tipping point state this year. It's the 7th-most populous state with several major metropolitan areas that dominate the state. How does this help the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, etc. right now?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:22 AM) Yet our voter turnout is less than ever before. People still need to be protected from themselves, and aren't generally well informed about politics. Well 100 years ago half of the population couldn't legally vote and the other half was heavily suppressed, so I'm not sure we should look at voter turnout in 1900 as some sort of hallmark.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) People after the revolution didn't really actively ignore politics either. They went out of their way to be involved. 100 years ago election day was a massive social event. Today it is a joke. They also didn't have anything close to modern communications.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) ...politicians will be politicians... Washington needs to be scrubbed clean, that much is apparent. Gerrymandering is state-by-state.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) Like I said, I don't think the electoral college is perfect, but it's better than moving to a pure popular vote system where only a select few major cities would decide elections. I think taking the electoral system and moving it to a proportional vote is a better compromise than doing away with it. That only makes gerrymandering worse.

I'm going to have to disagree that people, in general, aren't substantially more informed about national events and issues than they were in the 1790's.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 07:05 PM) The issue isn't about today, but the future, and the potential issues that could, and most definitely would arise if given enough time when it comes to basing a system on a purely populist system. It also creates a plethora of other issues people living in big cities tend to ignore, because you know, the world revolves around them and well...screw everyone else that doesn't happen to live there. * Popular votes quash minority populations/voices, no matter what type of population it is, be it religious, or racial. People tend to overlook that these populations of majority/minority change over time, and while this may benefit them now, a day will come when it won't, and possibly for the worse. If the wrong religion were to make a massive rise due to some social issue we haven't even thought of yet, they could conceivably control the presidency of the United States. I'm not saying something like this WILL happen, but given this sort of system, I'm warning that it COULD happen. Yes, this is me screaming the British are coming. And yes, I realize many will ignore me. How does the EV system protect religious or racial minorities? If the "wrong religion" were to gain massive, wide-spread, national popularity, why shouldn't that group as a whole control the Presidency? Rights shouldn't be subject to majority preference, but who holds an elected office should be. When was the last time anyone campaigned in North Dakota? It's solidly Red, so it gets ignored like most of the Midwest. Instead, whatever states happen to be close this year get all of the attention. Why should Romney write off the substantial conservative populations of California, New York and Illinois simply because the major metropolitan areas hold those states Blue? Why should the concerns of Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania (all higher-population states themselves) be the only things the campaign pays attention to this year? How does the EC actually give rural or smaller states any more of a say? Delaware and Rhode Island, the Dakotas, Idaho, Oklahoma, nobody pays any attention to those states now. btw, California actually has a huge agricultural industry. This is the one strong argument in favor of the EC, imo. On the other hand, the likelihood of getting a Florida 2000 in a truly national vote is reduced. You have one election that really very likely won't come down to a handful of votes versus 50 elections where 5-10 realistically might, and then you have different state laws for each mini-election despite it being a national office. Obama wouldn't carry the election with only a handful of major metro areas. On the other hand, he has zero reason to bother campaigning across most of the South and the Midwest, as does Romney. They didn't trust the public to be well-enough informed, and it was also a mechanism that gave the southern slave-owning states more of a say in Presidential politics (their EV's would take the 3/5's compromise into account). They also didn't consider anything close to modern political parties and nominating processes.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:37 AM) If somebody came to me and wanted to put money on Romney at 5-1, I'd take that bet. InTrade has significantly better odds than that for Romney.

He still eked out a win, but a guy in my league had Andrew Luck, Doug Martin and Mikel LeShoure on his bench. Three of his bench players outscored every other team in the league, including his own.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 07:49 AM) All I know is that if Romney wins, Nate Silver should close his blog down. He is leaving small windows open in case Mitt win but predicts a big time Obama win. It's moving more and more into a strong/clear prediction for Obama, but even at 20%, that's 1-in-5 odds. Or, as he put it the other day, 79% chance is the same as being up a field goal with 3 minutes left in the 4th. You're probably going to win and should, but it's far from a guarantee.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 06:56 PM) What a stupid idea that was... yup

My mom and my brother both had problems early voting this week

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 3, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Staten Island= 9th Ward Obama= Bush Bloomberg=Nagin Media = Invisible....After all there is an election they have to win.... That's an interesting alternate reality you've got there.

I have thought about it, but thanks for the condescension.

This is just absurd now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) My prediction is an Obama win. I do, however, also predict Romney wins the popular vote, which will be hilarious when all the democrat drones who wanted to do away with the electoral college suddenly and silently come to its defense this time around. I love it when people turn themselves into hypocrites years later when the very thing they were vehemently outspoken against suddenly helps their cause. For the record, I'm in favor of the electoral college, but for reasons to be discussed in another thread at another time. For full disclosure I hope neither Obama nor Romney win, despite knowing one of them will. The electoral college is s*** and should be abolished. But it's existence has an impact on the national vote totals. You can't assume that what happens on Tuesday is the same voting pattern that would emerge in a true national vote.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 01:02 AM) I swear I read a book once that said some candidate knew from advance polling he'd lost when he was on his way to vote and had to put on a happy face. He knew he had lost. Well plenty of candidates have been down huge in the polls and know that there's no real chance of them winning. That probably applies to McCain in 2008, but not 2005 or 2000.

It's "in trouble" in the sense that, in several decades, maybe we will have benefits reduced from what's current law, but those benefits will still be greater in terms of 2012 dollars than what we get now. That's being used as an excuse for a "Grand Bargain," that Simpson-Bowles type BS that cuts services and cuts taxes for the top while 'broadening the base.' There are ways to fix SS relatively easily without destroying the program, but that's not what the people pushing for these Grand Bargains, who are almost exclusively the 1% of the 1%, want.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) the race isn't close anymore. people will tell you it is, but everything is trending Obama's way. I predict an electoral college landslide. Check this out (Nate Silver): the big dip is after the first debate. You'd obviously rather be in Obama's position, but a 20% chance isn't horrible and far from the realm of impossible. Nate gave a good football analogy the other day. Obama's 79% (at the time) chance is like being up by a field goal with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Odds are, you're going to win, but it wouldn't be shocking if the other team managed to pull it out.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Did he do well in the later ones or did he still seem mean? I only watched Debate No. One. The consensus (and my take, too) was that he was boring, uninterested and ineffectual in the first debate, not mean. If anything, in the remaining debates he was much more forceful and directly critical of Romney, calling his bulls*** to his face.

humans are pretty s*** at risk assessment

...no??

I can't believe they're diverting resources for a stupid race. That is mind-boggling.