Reddy

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 13, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) Reddy is going to need some aloe for that burn. Nowhere did I say I didn't support certain amounts of voter suppression... I was commenting on pettie's inconsistencies and attacking it for being a "liberal s*** hole" #readingcomprehensionFTW

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) New York is just another screwy liberal s***hole. Even though it's usually GOP that use voter suppression? Come on. At least be consistent.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 11:10 AM) I can see both sides of the argument. I consider myself a right-leaning Independent and not really a Republican, but I generally vote in the Republican primary. In 2008, because the Democratic contest was still undecided by the time the Indiana Primary came around, I took advantage of Indiana's Open Primary rules and voted in the Democratic primary for the sole purpose of voting against Hillary. Depending on how things shake out in both races in the next three weeks, I may do the same again this year. I think the Democratic party can make a valid claim that I really shouldn't have a voice in their nomination process, since in both cases there was/is zero chance I'm actually voting for their nominee in November. If I had to make up my mind six months ago, I would have registered for the Republican primary. Now, if you want to make the case that there should be a later deadline for people who aren't already registered with either party, I'm on board with that, but I don't think setting a six month deadline for people who are already registered with one of the parties to switch is unreasonable. This is dangerous territory, but this die hard liberal agrees with you.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) Having the deadline to update party enrollment more than 6 months before the primary is just absolutely ridiculous. Bernie will probably lose New York for that reason alone. And the fact that his poll numbers are dropping...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 06:01 PM) I didn't say it would. Their disproportionate power would change. There's no reason for a vote in Wyoming or Vermont to count for substantially more than a vote in California or Texas. Right... but they will still matter substantially LESS than their counterparts in California in a popular vote system, since the candidates will still not travel there, nor put money into those states.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:54 PM) They wouldn't, but at least now every voter in that state would be on equal footing with everyone else. Why should they continue to have such disproportionate voting power? How do they have equal footing if their individual needs as voters aren't being catered to by the candidates while others get face to face attention on the daily? That won't change.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:51 PM) Let me rephrase your statement: "whichever party 'controls' the largest populations is going to be the party that has a much, much easier time of winning." Acreage and low-density population shouldn't be given disproportionate voting power. Cities will still vote strongly Democratic, but there are many Republicans in places like Chicago, NYC or LA that essentially get no say in the Presidency. Rural and suburban Republicans in those states face the same fate. A pure popular vote would fix that, making their vote equal to everyone else's. State-by-state EV's favor big cities just as much, anyway. If you want to win Pennsylvania, you're going to need at least some help from Pitt/Philly and the surrounding burbs. I get it, but whomever controls those populations will have to do much less WORK to get their votes than the other party. The GOP would have to galvanize GOTV campaigns ALL ACROSS the country, while the Dems could focus on GOTV in just urban areas, making it much simpler, especially if elections ever become publicly funded and both sides have the same amount of cash to work with. Wouldn't that also be a problem?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) Candidates already focus on more populated areas within the "battleground" states, though. If you're campaigning nationally or just campaigning in Pennsylvania, you still need to capture the majority of the votes and those votes are going to be concentrated in and around cities. The Electoral College also amplifies the urban disadvantage that's deliberately baked into the Senate and also in the House since the number of Representatives was capped. Ohio and its 18EV's gets a lot of focus in recent elections, and it will again this year. It takes the 12 smallest states to add up to the population of Ohio, yet those states collectively have 40 EV's. How does that sort of system make any sense? Come on. Des Moines, Iowa or Pittsburgh, PA or Columbus, OH don't even COMPARE to Chicago or NYC or LA in terms of demographics. Plenty of farmers live in the city limits of Des Moines. How many live in Chicago? And like you've already said, those twelve smallest states' support is already pretty heavily ingrained, and would remain so in a popular vote system, so why would the candidates travel there?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:40 PM) To me the most interesting part of it all is that I don't see the right to vote as having ever been intended to be a right in the first place. It was definitely supposed to be a privilege, which is why it was initially so limited. Of course no one really talks about that today. Then again, it is also fascinating that the easier it has become to vote today, the less people seem to give a s*** about voting. We have all day voting at polling places, absentee voting, and extended early voting in most places, and the percentages of people who vote now are worse than ever out of the people who can vote. 150 years ago, voting was limited to those over 21 (which when you consider what the lifespan was 150 years ago is more like 40 today), and not if you were black, female, and probably not if you didn't own land. You also had to figure out how to spend a day traveling to get to one of the polling places without modern transportation, and yet people didn't miss the opportunity. Maybe people need to feel lucky to vote again? Who knows. I don't know if it's about luck, but they SHOULD need to put a little effort in for god's sake. I know people like to b**** about entitled millennials, but haven't we ALL become a little f***ing entitled? How hard is it to do some damn research to find out your registration cut-off date? We have all the information ever recorded in human history available at our fingertips. #getoffmylawn

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:36 PM) Well first, the election shouldn't be about cost of running in any case. Second, understand fluidity - the parties and state makeups change over time. The rural versus urban discussion is A) Not a Constitutional issue anyway, and B) is only currently stilted the way it is in terms of party bias. It wasn't before, and may not be again in the future. So you don't create laws under any assumptions that way. Agreed on your first point. Public funding for the win. Of course there's fluidity and change, but essentially whichever party "controls" the urban populations is going to be the party that has a much, much easier time of winning, and doesn't that completely disenfranchise the rest of the country?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:32 PM) Not sure what you mean here. First, I think every vote should count equally because that is the foundation of representative democracy. Second, not, the current system is what disenfranchises people because anyone in a state that is heavily to one side or the other is basically a non-entity in the election. The purpose of the Electoral College was to protect state powers - not power of people individually. And it is effective in that regard, sort of. But it happens to be my view that they got this wrong. The legislature is already split - full states elect a senator, individual districts elect a house member. I personally think the Presidency, being essentially the only national, elected office, should go to the people. Instead, we get another split, which effectively OVER-franchises rural or small states at the expense of the people. Just my personal view. I'm an individualist. If you want to empower states versus feds, I don't think the Electoral College is the effective way to do so. You instead make sure that federal laws stay within the confines of national interests, interstate commerce, defense, civil rights... the stuff enumerated in the Constitution. I realize this isn't a popular opinion, but I am tired of the Presidential elections being determined entirely by Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. I think that's actually a pretty popular opinion

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:30 PM) I'd say America is a better cross section of America though. But in a purely popular vote, the candidates would literally just hit big cities, which skew heavily Dem anyway, so it makes things 30x harder for the GOP candidate who has to visit far more places in order to galvanize votes than does the Dem candidate, since that person can hit major cities, just GOTV and win.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) Trump has won 37% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries/caucuses, but 45% of the delegates. Under a popular vote, Donald Trump would be doing worse. Fair. The winner-take-all states on the GOP side do skew things pretty significantly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:26 PM) If the rest of the map holds and Texas has a legit shot of turning Democrat, the GOP is doomed anyway so the race is pretty pointless. Regarding Iowa, that's just because it happens to be pretty ideologically split these days and has a decent number of EV's. It's because it's "in play," not because it's small or rural, that it gets any attention. This map of campaign spending from 2012 shows what states got any attention: What sense does it make for a Presidential election to focus on states who happen to have a close ideological split in a given election? I don't think Democratic votes in Texas or Republican votes in California should be essentially meaningless. Wouldn't you say those states are a pretty good cross-section of America, demographically speaking?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:19 PM) Parties can do what they want regarding their nominees. I'd prefer something along the lines of what NSS suggested. But the general election is a different matter. EV's don't act as some sort of "checks and balances" against populism. Maybe not, but the EC is literally the only thing that still gives the GOP a prayer in hell of winning the Presidency.

By the way, I'll get to the other stuff, but quick point that Texas is in danger of flipping. If not this cycle, then definitely the next. And Iowa is always considered a toss-up state which the candidates visit quite often, even in the general

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) There are a lot of reasons Trump is leading the GOP race. Blocking people from voting is a terrible way to "solve" that problem. Maybe. I understand I'm arguing against my self interest here when it comes to the general, since higher turnout = better chances for democrats, but I truly do feel some level of checks and balances need to exist. That said we're having this argument in two separate places so maybe let's just focus on the other thread

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:04 PM) Basic principles of democracy? Why shouldn't votes count equally? People vote, not acres. No. It would make their voting power equal to everyone else's instead of stronger. As it is, nobody pays any attention to small, rural states anyway because they're pretty "safe" for one party or the other. Races focus on moderate-large states that are in play in any given year. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio have seen lots of attention over the last few Presidential elections and they're not small or especially rural. Large states like Illinois, California and Texas already have lots of rural area and lots of farmers. As it is, Presidential candidates don't bother too much with trying to court their votes because those states are pretty ideologically solid (if any of those three were in danger of flipping, the election would already be in landslide territory). Iowa says hi. And remember, we're not a Democracy. We're a Democratic Republic. There's a reason this isn't pure Democracy. Pure popular vote is the reason a populist demagogue like Trump has been able to rise to prominence in the GOP. If everyone were equally versed on the issues, paid equal attention to the candidates, understood the ramifications of their votes, then great, let's have a purely popular vote. Until that time, there need to be checks and balances like the superdelegate system that keep a Trump from happening at least in one of the parties. Just IMO obvs.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) My personal opinion is that both should be. But neither are, at least not exactly. The electoral college model, as it pertains to the Presidential elections, is in my view decidedly less than democratic and should be abolished in favor of a pure, national popular vote. That is the only way for every vote to count equally. But that just won't happen. Why should every vote count equally? EDIT: Won't that disenfranchise people from smaller, more rural states? Farmers? etc?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 04:27 PM) The primary and general elections are completely different animals. One is for private organizations to pick their candidates. The other is for the people to pick their candidates. This. The Democratic and Republican parties are under no obligation to change their rules just because a third party has never materialized. It's their right to run their parties however they like, honestly. You have a say by voting every two years. If you didn't vote in the midterms, you've got no room to complain.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election. That said, I agree with you that the ideal model is for all party races to be voted, via primaries, in every state, without any Supers or Nationals or any of the other garbage. I'd certainly prefer that. Why should the primaries be purely popular vote based if the general isn't?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 01:36 PM) Every citizen of voting age should be able to have their say in our democracy with as few byzantine rules as possible. There is no need to have the registration deadline be weeks ahead of the election, especially when you're in a state with a closed primary. What other arbitrary "weeding-out" barriers to voting should we throw up? Eh, I don't necessarily agree. Pure popular vote is the reason Trump is doing so well. There need to be checks and balances on the idiocy of the American public

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) Same-day voter registration or even automatic registration should be the national norm. I guess... but isn't this a really great weeding-out process? If you can't be bothered to figure out when you need to register by, do you really have any business having a say in who the leader of the free world is going to be?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) He called her elitist and entitled. Reddy called him s exist for it. I'll laugh at that jump every single time. As a Trump supporter, I'm gonna take your disdain as a deep compliment.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 11:03 AM) Yes, those are legitimate questions of Hillary. They are also not what people are referring to when talking about sexist attitudes toward Clinton. This reminds me of a circular gamergate argument where I'm just going to hear" NO, it's about ethics in gamer journalism". You are free to criticize Hillary Clinton's politics, which Bernie Sanders has done, and successfully. But, if you make sexist critiques against Hillary Clinton, it is allowed to be pointed out. And if the response is "What? You can't criticize Hillary Clinton without being a sexist?", I just don't think that's a good faith argument. Greg's comment had the themes I am sick of seeing. They are toxic not because it affects Hillary Clinton, but because that stuff affects all women, and can be called out. If Greg said "I just don't trust Hillary's judgment because of the Iraq War and Email Servers", and reddy responded "Because you are sexist", then I'd be happy to engage you on this. Hillary Clinton gets many deserved criticism (see entire Sanders left-critique), but there is that extra baggage that exists, and does influence and move a portion of the electorate. There is also a group of the electorate that has legit concerns about her, and also sexist critiques. I'll continue to call both out. *slow clap*