SOXOBAMA Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Lets get out the vote for Obama.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) Lets get out the vote for Obama.. How about we get the vote out for neither Obama or Romney, and let the two major parties know that the people aren't getting what they want from either side, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 How about we get the vote out for neither Obama or Romney, and let the two major parties know that the people aren't getting what they want from either side, instead. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 For Illinois voters, here is a link to the IL page that will show you where to vote, and what districts you are in. Then you can go to this link that shows who is running in each at the federal and state levels. Those sites are really far more complicated than they need to be. You should be able to just type in your address, and have it show you your districts AND who is running for those specifically. Locals, you have to research on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) How about we get the vote out for neither Obama or Romney, and let the two major parties know that the people aren't getting what they want from either side, instead. All that will tell them is they need to focus their efforts on the people who are still voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I'll be voting early, probably this Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I voted in IL a week ago I'm pretty sure it was basically as if I mailed them an absentee ballot, except I just filled it out and gave it to them in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) For Illinois voters, here is a link to the IL page that will show you where to vote, and what districts you are in. Then you can go to this link that shows who is running in each at the federal and state levels. Those sites are really far more complicated than they need to be. You should be able to just type in your address, and have it show you your districts AND who is running for those specifically. Locals, you have to research on your own. That website is pretty bad. Probably cost a billion tax payer dollars too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) Lets get out the vote for Obama.. I'm gonna cancel out your vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If you live in IL, you can consider your vote worthless Likewise with the vast majority of states. I know you could theoretically start a movement large enough to make your collective votes shift things, but let's get real. That's not happening. If and when we get rid of the electoral college, politics will change forever, for the better. My vote will count as much as some middle aged guy in Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If you want change, start local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Illinois needs to quit repressing people's right to vote. We started on the 9th in Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) If you want change, start local. If you want to change that, we need federal changes to get rid of the arcane electoral college model for Presidential elections that effectively disenfranchises 80% of the country in any given election for President. On many subjects, I prefer more power to go back to states and localities. But there are a few inherently national issues that need to get the states OUT of it, and this is one of those few. One vote should equal one vote for President of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) If you want to change that, we need federal changes to get rid of the arcane electoral college model for Presidential elections that effectively disenfranchises 80% of the country in any given election for President. On many subjects, I prefer more power to go back to states and localities. But there are a few inherently national issues that need to get the states OUT of it, and this is one of those few. One vote should equal one vote for President of the United States. I think if you got rid of the electoral college, you would just disenfranchise a different sector of the country. I have said before that we as a country did built in minority (as in not the majority of the votes) protections. I think the electoral college was another method, much like the senate, to try to limit the power of urban areas in a country that has a large agrarian history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 05:31 PM) I think if you got rid of the electoral college, you would just disenfranchise a different sector of the country. I have said before that we as a country did built in minority (as in not the majority of the votes) protections. I think the electoral college was another method, much like the senate, to try to limit the power of urban areas in a country that has a large agrarian history. But they are already way overrepresented in the senate. There's your minority power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) I think if you got rid of the electoral college, you would just disenfranchise a different sector of the country. I have said before that we as a country did built in minority (as in not the majority of the votes) protections. I think the electoral college was another method, much like the senate, to try to limit the power of urban areas in a country that has a large agrarian history. Congress is a representative body. One chamber is purely population-based, the other is state-based. That works as well now as it did then, model-wise. A President is not representative, because he/she cannot be. It is one person. Well, two, if you include the VP. Your statement that you disenfranchise another sector of the country is entirely unfounded in reality. One vote equals one vote - that is the ONLY way to give equal power to each INDIVIDUAL, regardless of where they live in the country. Also, this idea that the electoral college was set in place to help protect rural areas simply isn't true. There was no significant imbalance of that kind when the Constitutional text regarding this was set up, and then amended for. It was set up for multiple reasons, primarily that they wanted representatives to vote for the President because they didn't trust the individuals in the country to be able to do so. There were also simple logistical reasons why it wouldn't have worked well. One thing you argue that IS true, is that it was there to protect small states from large ones - but remember, this was done at the time that there were 13 colonies, and they were trying to build consensus for the Constitution itself by giving those privileges to smaller states, in order to get buy-in. Simply put, none of these factors are in play now. It no longer makes sense as a model, and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, to do so requires a Constitutional amendment, and that ain't happenin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:58 PM) But they are already way overrepresented in the senate. There's your minority power. It is two different branches of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) Congress is a representative body. One chamber is purely population-based, the other is state-based. That works as well now as it did then, model-wise. A President is not representative, because he/she cannot be. It is one person. Well, two, if you include the VP. Your statement that you disenfranchise another sector of the country is entirely unfounded in reality. One vote equals one vote - that is the ONLY way to give equal power to each INDIVIDUAL, regardless of where they live in the country. Also, this idea that the electoral college was set in place to help protect rural areas simply isn't true. There was no significant imbalance of that kind when the Constitutional text regarding this was set up, and then amended for. It was set up for multiple reasons, primarily that they wanted representatives to vote for the President because they didn't trust the individuals in the country to be able to do so. There were also simple logistical reasons why it wouldn't have worked well. One thing you argue that IS true, is that it was there to protect small states from large ones - but remember, this was done at the time that there were 13 colonies, and they were trying to build consensus for the Constitution itself by giving those privileges to smaller states, in order to get buy-in. Simply put, none of these factors are in play now. It no longer makes sense as a model, and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, to do so requires a Constitutional amendment, and that ain't happenin'. Instead of swing states, the election will be concentrated in higher populated areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) Instead of swing states, the election will be concentrated in higher populated areas. No... instead of 80% of the country's votes being meaningless, each one has the same value. For the purpose of POTUS, I don't care if somoene lives in a city or a suburb or on a farm, nor do I can what state they live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:08 PM) It is two different branches of government. Do we need to overrepresent rural areas in every branch of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) Instead of swing states, the election will be concentrated in higher populated areas. Say hello to the coasts choosing the presidency every election. Nobody in "fly-over" country would have their concerns listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:10 PM) Instead of swing states, the election will be concentrated in higher populated areas. But a lot of Americans live there, by it's very nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) No... instead of 80% of the country's votes being meaningless, each one has the same value. For the purpose of POTUS, I don't care if somoene lives in a city or a suburb or on a farm, nor do I can what state they live in. Not at all. In this scenario there is no need to contest lower populated areas. The payoff isn't worth it. Just like today campaigning in California isn't worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:18 PM) Say hello to the coasts choosing the presidency every election. Nobody in "fly-over" country would have their concerns listened to. The vast majority of Americans live on the coasts, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Do we need to overrepresent rural areas in every branch of government? Historically, it is how we have done business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts