Y2HH

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) I actually like the message a lot. Your civic duty is way bigger than just showing up at the polls every four years, though we can't even seem to handle that. I said the same thing on Facebook, and I rarely make status posts. My Status: "Seriously, take voting seriously or don't take part in the process just so you can say you did. If you don't know or understand the issues and you don't know what the candidates stand for, stay home." And I mean that. Voting may be a right, but people need to treat that right as a privilege, regardless of which candidates they choose. I find it sad that people go vote just so they can say they voted, but have no clue what they voted for or why...other than someone told them to do so. Yes, I realize I used seriously twice in that status...needed to be emphasized.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 08:57 AM) I'm sorry, but, that is just moronic. Particularly the bolded. In fact, I think you can make a good argument for the exact opposite. Solid arguments can be made on both sides of that line.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) This.

Walking Dead. More like Walking Awesome. I loved last nights episode.

This is pretty much how I feel about Republicans and Democrats: Never gets old.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) States have to be broken into districts. How do you prevent gerrymandering? Isn't the makeup of the US and various state Houses important enough to fight gerrymandering? No idea how to prevent it, I'm not a lawmaker.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) 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? That's why I said, they should probably move to a proportional vote, and pass some laws preventing that gerrymandering you spoke about earlier. I'm not saying our current system is great. But at least it protects us from the blatantly misinformed/uninformed or stupid...at least, to some degree.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) The Presidency is one person. It cannot be representative in any similar sense. It is the only truly national elected office, and therefore should be decided by the nation of EQUAL voters. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) Gerrymandering is state-by-state. When I say "Washington", I mean politicians. I thought you'd understand that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) You missed the point. 80% of the country is indeed disenfranchised with regard to the Presidency, not because of small states, but because they are not in SWING states. If you are not in FL, OH, VA, IA, WI, CO, NH and maybe one or two more states in play... then your vote is pretty much irrelevant due to the electoral college setup. The arguments about urban vs rural, small state vs large state, etc. are about representation. The legislature is the representative body, and the balance struck by having 2 senators per state regardless of size and at least 1 house rep... is a great setup to protect that. It is a representative body. The Presidency is one person. It cannot be representative in any similar sense. It is the only truly national elected office, and therefore should be decided by the nation of EQUAL voters. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) That only makes gerrymandering worse. ...politicians will be politicians... Washington needs to be scrubbed clean, that much is apparent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) I believe voters whould decide elections. Voters in a district for representatives in a district... voters in a state for a senator... voters in the nation for the only truly national office. Any electoral college setup effectively disenfranchises 80% of the country, and gives more weight to rural voters than urban ones. Simply put, I believe every vote should have the same value. Therefore, I believe that for Prez/VP (and ONLY those offices), a national popular vote is the only fair method. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) 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. This is a pretty complex argument. Let me "fix" this for you. People CAN be more informed today than they were in the 1790's. But the double edged sword on this is they can, proportionally, be more MISinformed, too. And they often are.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) I believe voters whould decide elections. Voters in a district for representatives in a district... voters in a state for a senator... voters in the nation for the only truly national office. Any electoral college setup effectively disenfranchises 80% of the country, and gives more weight to rural voters than urban ones. Simply put, I believe every vote should have the same value. Therefore, I believe that for Prez/VP (and ONLY those offices), a national popular vote is the only fair method. No it doesn't. Small states have very few electoral votes in comparison to large states, so to say it disenfranchises 80% of the country is pure nonsense.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:57 AM) If you truly believe in not focusing power on a few states, then the popular vote is exactly what you are looking for. I think a proportional vote through the electoral college solves this better than a pure popular vote where only major cities would decide elections.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) That's funny, because Hawaii already passed it. So did Vermont, as another example. These states have passed the law or have it pending as of today: California DC Hawaii Illinois Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Vermont Washington In addition to those, there are states like Colorado and New Mexico where it is still pending a Congressional vote (about a dozen states are in this type of position). Then there are Maine and Nebraska, who are already one foot in the door with their systems - and again, they are smaller states. The only states where the measure has come up and been voted down in legislature are Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Now imagine if Romney wins the popular vote this time around, but loses the electoral college. Couple that with the Obama hate, and I'm guessing some red states find a way to pass the law. Back and forth, so on and so on... it makes its way to where only a few states haven't done it. Then they pressure is on. You still aren't going to get states like Alaska, ND, SD, etc...to do the same.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 10:23 PM) Proportional electoral votes would at least give R's a chance in CA and D's a chance in TX, to obtain some electoral votes in those respective states. And you would at least see a national campaign with both parties actually interested in visiting states they now write off because of winner take all. If a candidate wins a congressional district, he wins the electoral vote for that district. This would probably be a more fair method of using the electoral college versus going away from it and allowing a select few major cities decide elections every 4 years, which is what the populists would love.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 07:42 AM) By the way, for those who are in favor of a popular vote instead of an electoral college for President (like me, because the popular vote is the only fair method)... there is a path to get there without a Constitutional amendment. And it has already started. As of now, about 12 states have passed conditional laws stating that, if/when all the other states do the same, they will mandate their electors in the electoral college to vote with the winner of the national popular vote. So, as more states do this, if eventually they all do it, you will then effectively have a national vote for President. As more states pass laws like this, there will be enormous pressure on the ones remaining that don't. I think this is an eventuality. Never gonna happen. You will never see states with populations the size of North/South Dakota, Hawaii or Alaska (among many others) pass this law, because it will completely quash their citizens voices. Therefore it will never be 100% passed across the union, and therefore never go through. Again, the things that affect their lives are so drastically different from the things that affect the lives of people living in big cities are so night and day, to have people living in cities basically making all of your decisions for you is one of the worst forms of voter oppression I've ever heard, and worse -- you support it, because it sounds fair, when it's actually not. I reiterate, this is the United States of America. Not the United couple of states with major metropolitan populations of America. Different regions need their voices heard for different reasons, and while this is convenient to ignore, it's NOT fair, regardless of how many times people repeat that it is. What's "popular" in downtown Manhattan is not so popular in Custer, South Dakota...for good reason.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) Under Obama, corporate profits reached record highs and consumer interest rates reached record lows. Under Obama, we have two new women on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the first Latina ever appointed to the nation's highest court. Under Obama, gays and lesbians can now serve openly in the military. Under Obama, one million auto-related jobs were saved by the auto bailout. Under Obama, we've now had 32 consecutive months of private sector job growth and added 5.5 million new jobs Wow, regurgitated talking points from the Obama administration! I hope he's paying you.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 3, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) Can you guys give some feedback on Windows 8 outside of the tech thread and put it here? Since I am starting a new job, I will probably get a new laptop so I am going to shy away from Windows 8 unless you all think it's worth the upgrade. I can't see it - especially for a business client in mind. For those of you who get it... let me know! Thanks! Been using it for a while -- with a touchscreen, it's a great OS. Without it, it's really not. It works, and it does everything it's supposed to do, but just not as intuitive with a mouse/keyboard as the old start bar was. It's not meant for a desktop that doesn't have touch. For the short term, this is a bad idea...but long term, which I have to believe is Microsofts vision, ALL screens will eventually be touchscreen, and when that happens, this will work very well. It will have short term growing pains, however, as it does NOT work the same, and I often find it infuriating to do what should be simple things. Again, if the monitor was touch based, it would be simple. But with a mouse, it's not the same.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 06:25 PM) I don't think it's the best system, but I prefer it to the electoral college and it really has a legitimate chance to upseat it with popular support. I'm not fathoming the issues that make electoral college better than pure popular vote...can you make some sort of argument (you don't have to do an exhaustive analysis, I understand these things can get long-winded) for your stance? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't know what a present-day pro-electoral college argument sounds like so it is hard for me to weigh pros and cons. 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. * This union is called the United States of America. Not the United couple of states that have massive populations of America. This system silences EVERY voice from states with low populations, as they're easily drowned out by the major metropolitan areas. For example, California, Chicago, Texas and New York -- by themselves -- could possibly quash the voices of the remaining 46 states, and if they can't today, the day is coming that they will. Suddenly you'll find how much politicians in Washington don't care about those other states anymore...and they'd simply stop campaigning there, or doing much of anything there. Then, let's keep in mind that issues that affect people living in big cities are completely different from the issues that affect a community/state of farmers. Ignoring their voice simply because they happen to live in North Dakota and the entire states population is 683,000 is bulls***, because without them, those people in California wouldn't have the food they have...but this is out of sight/out of mind to them, so issues that affect their land/crops aren't being considered by the populists, because they aren't there to see what's going on. * Let's consider a redo of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida...only now let's redo that vote nationwide, because the overall vote was "too close". The election was on hold for weeks because of a single state, imagine how long it would take to resolve if recounts were going on in all 50 at once... * The electoral college, while flawed, still requires a candidate get a broad base of support across the country, not in a select few major metropolitan areas. And it's like that for a good reason. * Last but not least, I believe the original intention of the electoral college by the founding fathers was that states elect presidents, not people, for the reasons mentioned above.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) I understand your argument, and this is the very problem with rule by democracy and why we don't make laws this way (by popular vote). California is in shambles because they let laws go up for popular vote all the time. However, what about the electoral college addresses those shortcomings? All it does is focus attention, arbitrarily, in a select few places. If gaining votes only counts in a handful of states, why is that more fair? Unfortunately, at this point, the electoral college is all we have, and it's better than the alternative of a pure popular vote. I'd love to hear of a better system to replace it that they'd actually implement, but removing it in favor of a popular vote isn't something I'd be interested in them doing...ever. Again, I'm sure some people are in favor of it now, short term, because they can't see the forest for the trees and it happens to favor at the moment, but long term (which they aren't seeing), it would destroy what little choice the people currently have. If the electoral college is replaced by a superior system, that's not a popular vote, I'd be all for such a change. But if the alternative is moving to a popular vote, no thanks...I'd rather keep the flawed system we have now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) I have thought about it, but thanks for the condescension. No problem, when it comes to this specific subject, I've got plenty of condescension left for you. Now go think about it more, because it's apparent you still haven't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) 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. I disagree, completely. If you thought about it -- at all -- you'd realize why a pure popular vote is a terrible idea. Then again, most people haven't bothered to think about it, because it's not popular to think for yourself these days, but repeat what others tell you. Just so happens that the current Democrat montra is electoral college = bad, because massive expanding population of voters on your side = good, at least while it's in their favor, that is. I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect, and perhaps a better system could replace it, but I am saying moving to a pure popular vote opens elections up to a multitude of problems, including what they call in corporate world, a hostile takeover. If you spent any amount of time *truly* thinking about it, you'd realize how bad of an idea this is. A pure popular vote would silence minority populations, be they white, black, catholic, jewish, etc...and make it so only the vast majority is heard -- and in a more dangerous yet conceivable situation -- even if it's a specific majority that rises, be it based on race or religion. That's NOT what we do here anymore, and for good reason. I thought we've learned what this can do to a nation already? Need people see signs such as 'whites only' again in order to remind you what happens when a single majority rises and can control elections? Like I said, think about it.

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.