Reddy

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:07 PM) unlikely. after Clinton won his second term it was supposed to be 30 years of Democrats controlling the house, senate, and oval office. didn't work out that way. if the GOP plays it right, they can win again. the economy went from good to good. right now, it's going to go from crap to better. there's a huge difference there.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:03 PM) I wondered about that. Whitlock called them on it and said they were lieing to America that the race never was close. Reddy. You know that since the days of Nixon when he sweated on TV, people have been voting how people look. No ugly person stands a chance. As far as my voting patterns, please don't call me sexist. I am a lifelong Republican and I voted for Obama. Why? I thought he was the better of two horrific candidates. Please ... I will vote for whomever I think is best. Trust me. I was an undecided until I went in the booth. I just couldn't vote for Romney whom I consider to be a clown. I'm just saying ALOT of people vote on looks, etc. It's been discussed for decades; how candidates look on TV. And hillary can come across as a huge b****. I prolly shouldn't have said old hag. it's hard for me to believe you have any idea what you're talking about when you had to ask why you should vote for one candidate or the other the day before the election. you don't know about how and why people vote. Who was the good looking one between Gore and Bush? Listen dude, we just voted a black guy into office twice, and more women are now in political office than ever before. we elected a lesbian senator in Wisconsin. Times be a changin' and you only think she's a b**** because you're a man.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah. Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win. Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big. I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote. you're silly. why do you think Obama's been "wretched"? and then why did you vote for him?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:55 PM) Yes, but we don't know how Hillary is going to act as the candidate. If she is Miss Prissy b**** as she's appeared to be in the past, I say she loses. In fact she could lose in a landslide. Remember, there are still intangibles in elections. Many voters still go by how a person looks on TV. If Hillary looks like an old hag and speaks words of b****iness and Rubio is up there all handsome and all that, he'll win in a landslide. I don't think you can give it to Hillary just because of Bill. Remember, women voted big time for Obama; men chose Romney. Women may not vote for Hillary just because she will be the first female president. And we know a lot of men will not vote for her just because she is a woman. The intangibles still leave a lot of unknowns ... mainly the Hillary/b**** factor on a long campaign trail. you're not horribly sexist at all!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) 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. It ain't perfect, but as i said to Rock, forget i used the words "state" and "power":

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) This assumes that voting habits would stay the same, and I am not sure that I can buy that. I think voting habits would change under a popular vote, as many results in the electoral system are basically a foregone conclusion. Maybe we would see larger turnouts by the current losing parties in these areas? Maybe we would see larger turnouts overall? I honestly have no idea. 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.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too. EXACTLY - and if they can get MORE people together in NYC than they can in Wyoming, they'll pander their positions to fit the needs of that larger group! what's hard to grasp about this?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:59 PM) But under a popular vote model states no longer have any power, the people do. SO who cares what states do, its all about counting everyone's vote and determining a winner based on that count. ok... but the states with increased influence because of high populations means that that's where the candidates will spend more time, correct?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) C'mon....this is something where reasonable minds can absolutely disagree...I don't think any of us can anticipate the outcome with any level of absolute certainty here. As Y2H alluded to earlier, you are a likable guy Reddy, but sometimes you have a tendency to assume a bit more expertise on a topic than I think is appropriate. i DO do that. lol

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

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) And I vehemently disagree with that point. Small states vs large states should be irrelevant in this case, first of all. Second, the voters in North Dakota or other small states will matter MORE, not less, with a popular vote, for the reasons I have laid out. you're just wrong man.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) Columbus is actually the largest city in Ohio. Virginia has several urban areas too like Richmond and Alexandria. Dont forget Fla has Tallahasse (sp?) and Tampa as well. It just sucks that MY vote for a national election essentially means dick living in Cook county. If we went popular every vote across the nation counts equally. yes. each VOTE counts the same as any other. BUT I still truly believe that the issues that matter to rural america will be glossed over in favor of those issues that matter to suburban and urban america, thus causing voter apathy, thus shifting the power to the metro areas.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:39 PM) And none of those states have metro areas according to Reddy. You are dead Miami, Cleveland, Orlando, Cincinnati i didn't say they don't have metro areas, but they in NO way compare to LA/NYC/Chicago

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) Not at all. First, the Dems already hold big sway in the cities of those areas you mentioned. So they won't go there too often either. The prize is the swing voters, who are spread out all over the country anyway. For both parties. that's not actually true. the whole myth of the "undecided voter" is a fallacy.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) 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. he's Independent now.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) 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. ??? it's... not... 50/50 in NY... it's very heavily liberal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) No, because that is not how Presidential campaigns work. What is necessary for them to win is two factors, just as it is now: getting out a base of people who believe in your platform, and winning over the moderate/swing voters. but dont you see how much EASIER that would be for the Dem? the Dem can go to LA, NYC, Chicago, big cities. That's it. And be fine. The GOP candidate has to go EVERYWHERE ELSE in order to "motivate the base" and GOTV

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) 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. which battleground state had any major metropolitan ares this time around? NY, CA, IL are never in the discussion. The battlegrounds are smaller states.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) Simply not true? By its very nature it has to be true. One vote equals one vote. Candidates' policies are already shaped by the populace, and already shaped by battleground states (auto bailout anyone?). A popular vote puts the entire populace in play, instead of a few, so candidates are forced to deal with what the people actually want. 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?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) I would argue a popular vote better empowers 3rd parties to enter the realm, because it doesn't require winning any chunks specifically over others. urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) On the bolded... the EC being removed does no such thing. It empowers all voters, instead of a few. The states still control everything that states control now, and still have the Senate which is the point of that body's structure. And I also do not like the idea of one state being less important, or more important, than another, which is why I favor a popular vote. simply not true. candidates policies will be shaped to reflect those in the heavily populated areas because THOSE are the areas they need to get on their side. when candidates don't talk about your issues and don't visit your state, you're not going to be motivated to vote.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:24 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". yet again... i agree. (i know that doesn't help your cause... so i apologize. )

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) lol. And you try to lecture people about wasting their vote? Come on man. to be fair, there was literally ONE contested election in my district in NYC. everyone else was a dem running unopposed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Or Jesse Jackson, Jr., who has been MIA, on drugs, cheating, doing god knows what else for the last 6 months, yet won 68% of the vote. exactly. nobody pays attention (relatively speaking) to ANYTHING below President on the ballot. I didn't know jack s*** about my local people, but I voted straight dem anyway. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe. But it's also something a LOT of people do