Predict the Election

[StrangeSox]

I have thought about it, but thanks for the condescension.

[Jake]

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.

 

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?

[BigSqwert]

Nice to see minority voters being turned away in Florida with their cars being towed as they try to wait in long lines.

 

America! f*** Yeah!

[StrangeSox]

My mom and my brother both had problems early voting this week

[kev211]

Democracy f*** Yeah!

 

 

Just let people vote for f***s sake.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

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.

[Jake]

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.

 

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.

[LittleHurt05]

Are there more people early voting than normal? I don't remember seeing this many people. And why are they all waiting in line for a few hours? I've never waited in any line to vote on Election Day.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jake]

Are there more people early voting than normal? I don't remember seeing this many people. And why are they all waiting in line for a few hours? I've never waited in any line to vote on Election Day.

 

This election will have a record number of early voters, as did the previous. Both campaigns have seen the utility in pushing early voting.

[Jake]

This election will have a record number of early voters, as did the previous. Both campaigns have seen the utility in pushing early voting.

 

I say that, but I see that early voting is down in Chicago. Maybe projections were off.

 

I know some places with R-controlled governments have restricted early voting further, like Florida.

 

I read someplace that about 75% of Nevada's ballots have been cast already, on the other hand.

[knightni]

Alabama beat LSU yesterday. Hisorically, that means that Obama should defeat Romney.

 

http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2012/11...ntial-election/

 

 

The Redskins loss to Carolina at home before the election gives it to Romney.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown...58972--nfl.html

 

 

In other words, sports means nothing to an election.

[mr_genius]

Are there more people early voting than normal? I don't remember seeing this many people. And why are they all waiting in line for a few hours? I've never waited in any line to vote on Election Day.

 

me neither

[Quin]

The Redskins loss to Carolina at home before the election gives it to Romney.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown...58972--nfl.html

 

 

In other words, sports means nothing to an election.

 

If we're going with weird coincidences, Obama still wins.

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_20139_6-biz...l-election.html

[Cknolls]

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.

 

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.

[Jake]

A good start would be the parties using an alternate vote system for the primaries. This could help folks have less crazy people come out as nominees -- its a miracle that Barack and Romney came out of their respective parties

[LittleHurt05]

This election will have a record number of early voters, as did the previous. Both campaigns have seen the utility in pushing early voting.

 

But why? And I don't see why a voter would spend his whole Saturday in line when they can vote in 5 minutes on Tuesday. I guess some people may have work obligations, but the polls are open for 13 hours and most aren't working 5 hours OT.

[cabiness42]

Are there more people early voting than normal? I don't remember seeing this many people. And why are they all waiting in line for a few hours? I've never waited in any line to vote on Election Day.

 

In the Indy area people waited in line for 2+ hours to vote when the lines will be minimal on Tuesday. A lot of people referenced a fear of some kind of freak last-minute weather/car breakdown that would prevent them from voting Tuesday.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

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.

Oddly enough, Romney winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college will most likely speed up the process as a lot of red states will jump on board.

[Brian]

All I know is that if Romney wins, Nate Silver should close his blog down.

 

He is leaving small windows open in case Mitt win but predicts a big time Obama win.

[LittleHurt05]

All I know is that if Romney wins, Nate Silver should close his blog down.

 

He is leaving small windows open in case Mitt win but predicts a big time Obama win.

 

It would almost be as bad as his 72-90 prediction for the 2007 White Sox. Oh, wait a second...

[StrangeSox]

All I know is that if Romney wins, Nate Silver should close his blog down.

 

He is leaving small windows open in case Mitt win but predicts a big time Obama win.

It's moving more and more into a strong/clear prediction for Obama, but even at 20%, that's 1-in-5 odds. Or, as he put it the other day, 79% chance is the same as being up a field goal with 3 minutes left in the 4th. You're probably going to win and should, but it's far from a guarantee.

[SOXOBAMA]

Under Obama, the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 has been caught and killed

 

Under Obama, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled from 6600 to 13,000.

 

Under Obama, 2-3 million jobs were created from the American Recovery Act.

 

Under Obama, 30 million people without health insurance will NOW be covered.

 

We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now we're creating 170,000 jobs a month.

 

Under Obama, people with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health care coverage.

 

Under Obama, women are entitled to equal pay for equal work under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act