Predict the Election

[SOXOBAMA]

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

[cabiness42]

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.

 

If somebody came to me and wanted to put money on Romney at 5-1, I'd take that bet.

[StrangeSox]

If somebody came to me and wanted to put money on Romney at 5-1, I'd take that bet.

 

InTrade has significantly better odds than that for Romney.

[SOXOBAMA]

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls

Our final Colorado poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 52/46.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

Never gonna happen.

 

You will never see states with populations the size of North or South Dakota, Hawaii or Alaska pass this law, because it will compeltely nullify their citizens voices. Therefore it will never be 100% passed across the union, and therefore never go through.

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.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

If you truly believe in not focusing power on a few states, then the popular vote is exactly what you are looking for.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You still aren't going to get states like Alaska, ND, SD, etc...to do the same.

We'll see. Give it time, and one or two conflicted votes for Prez.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

How does the EV system protect religious or racial minorities? If the "wrong religion" were to gain massive, wide-spread, national popularity, why shouldn't that group as a whole control the Presidency? Rights shouldn't be subject to majority preference, but who holds an elected office should be.

 

* 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.

 

When was the last time anyone campaigned in North Dakota? It's solidly Red, so it gets ignored like most of the Midwest. Instead, whatever states happen to be close this year get all of the attention. Why should Romney write off the substantial conservative populations of California, New York and Illinois simply because the major metropolitan areas hold those states Blue? Why should the concerns of Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania (all higher-population states themselves) be the only things the campaign pays attention to this year? How does the EC actually give rural or smaller states any more of a say? Delaware and Rhode Island, the Dakotas, Idaho, Oklahoma, nobody pays any attention to those states now.

 

btw, California actually has a huge agricultural industry.

 

* 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...

 

This is the one strong argument in favor of the EC, imo. On the other hand, the likelihood of getting a Florida 2000 in a truly national vote is reduced. You have one election that really very likely won't come down to a handful of votes versus 50 elections where 5-10 realistically might, and then you have different state laws for each mini-election despite it being a national office.

 

* 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.

 

Obama wouldn't carry the election with only a handful of major metro areas. On the other hand, he has zero reason to bother campaigning across most of the South and the Midwest, as does Romney.

 

* 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.

 

They didn't trust the public to be well-enough informed, and it was also a mechanism that gave the southern slave-owning states more of a say in Presidential politics (their EV's would take the 3/5's compromise into account). They also didn't consider anything close to modern political parties and nominating processes.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think a proportional vote through the electoral college solves this better than a pure popular vote where only major cities would decide elections.

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.

 

[southsider2k5]

How does the EV system protect religious or racial minorities? If the "wrong religion" were to gain massive, wide-spread, national popularity, why shouldn't that group as a whole control the Presidency? Rights shouldn't be subject to majority preference, but who holds an elected office should be.

 

 

 

When was the last time anyone campaigned in North Dakota? It's solidly Red, so it gets ignored like most of the Midwest. Instead, whatever states happen to be close this year get all of the attention. Why should Romney write off the substantial conservative populations of California, New York and Illinois simply because the major metropolitan areas hold those states Blue? Why should the concerns of Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania (all higher-population states themselves) be the only things the campaign pays attention to this year? How does the EC actually give rural or smaller states any more of a say? Delaware and Rhode Island, the Dakotas, Idaho, Oklahoma, nobody pays any attention to those states now.

 

btw, California actually has a huge agricultural industry.

 

 

 

This is the one strong argument in favor of the EC, imo. On the other hand, the likelihood of getting a Florida 2000 in a truly national vote is reduced. You have one election that really very likely won't come down to a handful of votes versus 50 elections where 5-10 realistically might, and then you have different state laws for each mini-election despite it being a national office.

 

 

 

Obama wouldn't carry the election with only a handful of major metro areas. On the other hand, he has zero reason to bother campaigning across most of the South and the Midwest, as does Romney.

 

 

 

They didn't trust the public to be well-enough informed, and it was also a mechanism that gave the southern slave-owning states more of a say in Presidential politics (their EV's would take the 3/5's compromise into account). They also didn't consider anything close to modern political parties and nominating processes.

Well that hasn't really changed...

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well that hasn't really changed...

Can't argue with you there.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

That only makes gerrymandering worse.

[CrimsonWeltall]

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

 

You'd need to get 100% of the vote in the top 40 metropolitan areas to reach a majority of voters.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

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.

 

 

[Y2HH]

That only makes gerrymandering worse.

 

...politicians will be politicians...

 

Washington needs to be scrubbed clean, that much is apparent.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

People after the revolution didn't really actively ignore politics either. They went out of their way to be involved. 100 years ago election day was a massive social event. Today it is a joke.