Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) Who gives any s*** at all who the "favorites" are for 2016? Remember how wrong all of those predictions were in 2004 for 2008? In 2008 for 2012 (Sarah Palin was considered the frontrunner. Palin!) Exactly. These types of things change so rapidly there is no point in even discussing it. One wrong move or scandal, and the entire landscape changes within minutes.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 06:56 AM) California has 1 electoral vote for every 680,000 people and North Dakota has one electoral vote for every 220,000 people, so it's 3-1 and not 700-1 in Presidential elections. Also, while the people of California may not have been able to forsee such a massive population back then, they did choose to enter the union as one giant state instead of 2-3 smaller states, whereas the Dakota territory decided to become two states. Nobody forced those decisions on those people. Um, yes they did. The people in power, which were very few, made such decisions on behalf of everyone else -- for better or worse -- whether they, the people, were even aware of it. Especially back then when news took months to travel around. Many of these types of decisions were probably made without foreseeing population booms or busts in the future. As a matter of fact, I doubt many of such decisions were made looking that far in the future at all.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:14 PM) the economy went from good to good. right now, it's going to go from crap to better. there's a huge difference there. Not necessarily. This assumes nothing else will go wrong, and I assure you, if you've ever owned a house, which is much like owning an economy, just when you think nothing else can go wrong, something most assuredly will. The one thing he democrats will need to worry about now is our national debt. Whether its their fault or not dowsnt matter, after 8 years in office, the onus is on them now. If this goes from bad to worse and our credit crumbles, the democrats will be blamed even if they didn't do it on their own. That, and as far as I can see, only that is what will give the Republican Party an entry point in getting back into the good graces of the people. The Democratic Party needs to pay attention to this if they want to stay the party in power.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Let me guess, the President is a Daley? Actually, you're President. Consider this your Mayor Goldie Wilson moment.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) If you think those 3 cities can control the US popular vote, there is nothing I can say. I dont even believe they account for 10% of the US population, and even at their most drastic splits, it would be 70/30. Big cities have diverse points of view. You cant just put them in the Democratic column. From 72'-88 Cali and Il voted Republican in every election. Its arguable but for Perot, it might have continued. He's not saying that. Also, they can't control it now...but what of in 50 years? I happen to own a DeLorean with time circuits and a flux capacitor, and in 2048, the population of Chicago alone is 95% of the US. New York was buried in a flood caused by AGW, and California fell into the ocean from a 12.0 magnitude quake. Chicago is all that's left, so everyone came here. Except the people living out in the farm lands...but nobody cares what they think or need.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) 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. It would. That's why I'm saying while I don't think the EC is perfect, and could probably be tweaked for better representation, I'm not ready to get rid of it and just end up with the polar opposite of what we have not without actually fixing anything.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:41 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. This is why I feel the EC just needs to vote proportionately. I'm simply not ready to hand over that much power to the masses... Because...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) Im sorry I meant that Bloomberg was voted in as a Republican. I could have just said Giuliani. And someday the Cubs will win the World Series. Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut, but would be we ready to say the Cubs are awesome?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) Wrong question. See my post above. And for more evidence, see Iowa and New Hampshire. Very rural areas, of great importance because they have so many swing/moderate voters. Most NYC urbanites are going to vote Dem, most Wyomingers (or whatever they call themselves) will vote GOP, in the current landscape. In reality, if you want to make a good argument for the weakness of the popular vote model, it is that the candidates will focus on suburbanites more than either urban or rural extremes. And Reddy's point is that if you change it to popular, NONE of the small states would matter ever again. Campaigns would take place in NY, Chicago and LA, etc. At least right now there are a few small states that DO matter. And I'm not saying the current system is perfect...but I believe it's better than the alternative you pose. I think you're trying to fix a problem and making it even worse. You should run for office...you'd fit in well in Washington.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority! I absolutely see the point they're making...I just think it takes a bad problem and makes it even worse, when their intention is to fix it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:30 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. I'm moving to Ireland! Seriously though, I agree, this is the best discussion I think I've seen in the Buster in some time. I don't think we're far off in that we both realize there is a problem with votes mattering. I think the disagreement comes in that you believe a popular vote would fix the problem where I believe it will make an already bad problem even worse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:27 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. I don't think a popular vote fixes that problem, I think it makes a bad problem even worse.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) 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. Because of our limited choice two party system, we ALREADY have very few "battleground" states that "matter" in a national election. I believe that without the EC, we'd have even LESS. In other news, I think the world stopped spinning, or the Zombie Apocalypse has occurred...as we agreed on something.

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".

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) If that happens it wont matter if its popular or electoral vote, the cities are going to control. You already see it tipping in states like Virginia and NC, where the urban base has grown and the voting pattern no longer reflects the heart of the confederacy. Even Texas is going to start moving because the metro centers are going to grow faster. The reason that urban areas dont control right now is just a quirk in the population dynamics of the US. I believe the south is growing faster than the north, but right now the population hasnt tipped the south, so they are gaining electoral votes for Republicans, but their political identity is actually shifting the other way. Its just delaying the inevitable, when you have a system based on voting, the larger population is going to win more times than not. Thus if urban is the larger population, urban should win more than not. They can still give more weight to the smaller/less populated states with the EC in effect to counteract what you just mentioned. Without the EC, they lose all such control.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:04 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. And THIS right here highlights my fear of a national popular vote. Wasn't another guy elected without even campaigning because hes in prison?

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) There are a couple states that award electoral votes by congessional district. So, instead of a candidate receiving all electoral votes from the state, they would receive the votes for each congressional district won within the state. If every state were to do this, could it truly change the outcome at times? Is this a better way of doing the electoral college? This is closer to something I'd accept, as it lends more weight to the popular vote, without giving the popular vote full control. I fear in this age of media and twitters, that if we moved to a pure popular vote, we'd have presidents like the one from Idiocracy. Because, why not...he was popular even if he had no right leading a nation. Then again...maybe we need that...seeing as what we usually get now is more of the same year after year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) Could be, and it could be the opposite too. I'm sure there are a lot of Chicagoans that don't vote because they know the election is in the bag. You mean like how Daley and Rham won mayoral elections...quite easily, because there is a D next to their name?

I said this before, and I'll say it again, because it appears it needs to be repeated. I'm not saying a popular vote wouldn't work temporarily...in our current political landscape/population, it MIGHT work just fine. But 50 years from now, the population of these cities are going to quadruple, if not more. At that point, they and they alone will control the vote.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Why arent they just Americans? 1 Americans vote located in North Dakota equals 1 Americans vote in NY. North Dakota is already over represented in legislature. Because it's the United STATES of America. Individual states have individual laws/rules/taxes, etc...all which affect them differently, and that has to be assessed. States elect presidents, not people.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) A North Dakotan should count the same as A New Yorker, when it comes to an all-for-one election. I don't care which state any given voter is from, and neither should the election for President. The Legislature is the REPRESENTATIVE body, and takes care of that. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) This is pretty much how I see it. THAT point is view is more logical, yes. But it doesn't apply to most states. I think putting your voice into the system, even if it's "wasted" sends a message of protest. Yes, I used my vote to protest. I thought that was the point of the system...the point of having a voice, even if it's a small one.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) Lol, didn't know you were the all knowing lord of politics. Stein got enough support to make 20 million for the party for next election. That's a very good thing. And part of democracy is having the right to choose to support other parties. Second, most of us live in Illinois where our presedential votes don't matter anyway, so why are those not wasted votes? Why not try and support the financial gain of a third party instead where your vote actually moves the needle? This is exactly how I looked at it, and it's why I lent my voice to a third party candidate. Not because I thought they would win, but because I want to send a message that there is a swath of voters out there, even it's a vast minority of us, that are unhappy with both parties. I fail to see what's wrong with me doing that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) disagree. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is not wasted. Just like a vote for Mit Romney was not wasted last night, despite him losing. You have a twisted vision of our voting system. But I get it. So long as everyone votes exactly like you, their vote isn't wasted. Yes, logic.