Reddy

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) Sorry, richest and most important area of the country, we have to dilute your vote by 700% so the 400 people in north dakota can get a bunch of federal money to build their expensive road to serve 14 people. you realize that i'm not advocating a national popular vote... right?? you're reading into this all backwards. lol

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. s***. Something else we agree on!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:34 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. Exactly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) As opposed to now, where candidates are in North Dakota non stop for their 1 electoral vote for a heavily red state. that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) 1. no, in fact most will have more say. As it is now, 40+ states are irrelevant each cycle anyway because of the electoral college. You give the power back to 80% of the voters, in all states, by switching to a popular vote. The farmer in North Dakota (whose vote wouldn't have mattered much in this election), and the urbanite in Chicago (same), would now have both their votes matter the same as everyone else's. will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) To a certain extent, this... But also, the nation has changed, as has technology. Here are my basic reasons, if you really want to know... 1. Look at the history. The Electoral College was put in place for three primary reasons. One, a national popular vote was much more expensive and difficult to accomplish at that time. Two, the framers didn't trust the electorate to make good decisions (this may still hold true, but modern society now gives them the ammo they need to make good ones if they are informed). And three, they wanted buy-in from the smaller states to form the union. Of those three factors, none are really relevant today, except to a degree the representation of smaller states. 2. The Presidency is not, and cannot be, representative in the same sense as a legislature. It is one person. One person to represent the nation as its chief executive. Arguments about small or large states, urban or rural, black or white... are irrelevant because there cannot be a breakdown. Therefore, the only logical way to derive the will of the people for a single office, is a single vote. Unless that is, you want to go the other way, and have Congress choose a President, and take the vote of the people away entirely. 3. The interests of those dynamics I mentioned earlier, geographically and otherwise, and represented in the Legislature, as was the design. You have a population-based body, and a state-based body, in a bicameral legislature, and that is a great system for doing just that. SCOTUS and the Executive branch were never intended to be filled by the wishes of land area, or of smaller levels of government. 4. The electoral college is statistically problematic because of the nature of 535 - rounding and grouping must occur, in some biased fashion. No need for that intrusion with a popular vote. 5. The electoral college leaves wiggle room for electors to do stupid things, and not represent the will of the voters. You are introducing human error where there need not be any. I have other reasons too, but there is a sampling for you to chew on. a lot of valid points, but i'm curious about what i mentioned before. If only the urban centers matter, won't 1) the rural areas and small states become disenfranchised and 2) won't democrats always win?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) They really aren't. Baseball advanced statistics really aren't of a predictive nature. They are of a resulting nature. They are as a result of actions that have already happen. Election prediction is WAY different. They really aren't related. the reason we have battleground states is due to results of prior elections and how certain voting blocks tend to vote. i get what youre saying, and you're right. but a lot of you are oversimplifying the poll-taking process

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:18 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. oh i absolutely agree that baseball is MORE complicated - but i'm pretty sure your initial post said you don't see how they're in any way related... and... that's simply not true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) Except there is a fundamental difference here. Baseball statistics are the result of play. Election projections are based on polls of what is going to happen. (past results versus future results, just in case you are missing the disconnect there) Those are polar opposite things there, unless you are trying to tell me that Nate Silver can predict baseball ABs, games, and seasons to somewhere between 98 and 100% accuracy. Nate Silver and other polls DO take into account past voting patterns and how states/districts/etc have voted in the past when creating models for prediction. My dad is a leading political scientist in the field of why and how voters decide. there's a lot more to it than blindly predicting what's going to happen.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 06:08 PM) I was listening to an interview with a musician on the radio months back and he was talking about Gene Simmons. He was on tour with him years ago and I guess the night before Gene got with some girl who was Miss America at one point. The next night the musician saw Gene getting into an elevator with some pig. Next morning the guy asked Gene what that was all about and Gene's reply was, "You cant have filet mignon every night, sometimes you want McDonalds." and the point of doing a fat chick isnt to make yourself feel better. while doing the fat girl, you should be thinking how repulsed you are of yourself for doing such a girl. Emo's cut themselves, real men drill fatties. hahaha fair enough, i'm just not sure i wanna be that grossed out by myself. i think i'd rather jerk it to madison ivy than screw a fat chick. lol

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 02:41 AM) Glad it went well and you are content. Has she ever thanked her for getting her the f***ing job, though?? If she hasn't, I think she has some character issues and you are better off w/out her. it wasn't a job, just an audition (interview) - but yes she did. she's a very good person actually. starting to miss her a bit - been a week and a half - but honestly it's still the right move. been throwing myself into Sandy relief work to keep busy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) Chris Matthews: Thank God for Hurricane Sandy! http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/1...ened-last-week/ not a wise comment, but per usual, taken out of context.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) Unless baseball is a popular vote contest, I don't get the connection between the two. of course you wouldn't (statistics and math are used in making projections in both politics AND sports!)

i mean, as a democrat i'd LOVE a national popular vote.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) It was the right call 200+ years ago, just as allowing women and minorities and people who didn't own land to vote was the right choice 200+ years ago. even though it disenfranchises anywhere that isn't an urban center?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) Alternative to Donald Trump? Being slowly consumed by pirahnas. Alternative to the Electoral College? I don't want to hijack the thread again with that, but I made clear earlier, a popular national vote for the Presidency/VP (and only that office) is the only equitable and logical solution, in my view. You can go peruse the predictions thread for the detailed debate about that. saw all that - new question - why is a national popular vote the right call NOW when it wasn't for last 200+ years?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:59 AM) I certainly do. Doesn't change the fact that he is an ignoramus. remind me what your better alternative is?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) There's the real issue for me if I was forced to choose for one or the other the idea of "greater good" would mean either voting with my family who are mainly teachers, friends who are openly gay and support freedom of choice, or myself who financially should side with the GOP. I firmly believe governement shouldnt make our moral decisions for us and that women have rights to control their bodies, but at the same time that tax issue for people who make over 250k is attractive to me. Glad that wasnt really a situation I was put in. Personally that's not even tough. I'll vote for civil rights over my own financial self-interest every single time. But you're right, that IS the choice people had to make.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) No. According to Politico and the WSJ, it dasn't a broad mandate because he had to rely on minorities and women to win instead of winning the white male vote. who... don't... count??

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) The main issue with that was the timing. It was a week before the election. If that was 6 months ago, fine, no problem. But as O'Reilly correctly pointed out last night, Sandy was a big blow (ba-doom-ching) to Romney's campaign. He was off the front page for 4-5 days, and in his place was the President talking on the phone or wearing a jacket with the Presidential seal or walking with Christie. I think the GOP has to go with Rubio or at least Rubio as a VP. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that this year but I guess the thought was to try and catch one last tea party wave. This was such a winnable election. people have very, very short memories. people didn't even care that Obama got bin Laden by the time the election happened.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) Is Chris Christie still highly thought of in the GOP as a candidate for 2016? I wonder how much damage was done when he praised the President. It's a shame that even in a time of crisis politics still rule. I have no doubt in my mind that if Christie runs in 2016, he will be very, very tough to beat. I watched him handling the hurricane, and he's all sorts of presidential. if he loses 100 pounds...

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) Actually, I would like to see Castro as the VP pick to Clinton. Warren would be a great VP pick. Clinton's too old to do VP. I feel like she's either going to be done with politics, or go for president. doubt she'd settle for anything else at this point.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) How is helping award a third party financial support for next election moving backwards? You make zero sense. Because of this election and the support they can continue to build the campaign for 2016 when they can insert in your words a "viable" candidate. Not you - you're fine - you live in Illinois. I wish I'd mentioned that earlier cuz it would have saved us all this headache, but primarily i'm talking about people who live in contested states. In THOSE states a third party vote risks moving backwards (ie: the "other guy" of the two viable candidates winning). the solid red or blues can do whatever they want. it's NOT as big a deal in Illinois, and your point about the popular vote is well taken.

yeah everyone's talking Clinton - but i doubt she'll run. I love Elizabeth Warren, but she's too liberal to do well unfortunately.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) Yes and my vote went to the party I support. So I boosted my own choice and that's it. I took away a popular vote from both the republicans and democrats. You are still locked into a two party frame of mind. i'm locked into a greater good, lesser of two evils frame of mind. but like i said, if a candidate comes along who's a viable third party choice, then I'll vote for them - but until that day, I'd rather us go slowly in the right direction than backwards, and i'll vote to support THAT.