Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 The biggest problem with our election system is that less than 60% of the people vote. And yet i'm sure 99.9% have an opinion about it. That's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) Based on what? We're 8 years removed from a Republican winning with a ~4 million vote margin. Obama is only the second democratic president since FDR to win with 50% of the vote. If a national vote, republicans could finally whip a fever into that huge block of conservatives in NY and CA that are drowned out. There are more republicans in california than there probably are in the gulf coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) And I find that unnecessary. /shrugs This isnt 1770 and Im trying to convince Maryland to join the cause against the British, and they are fearful that Virginia will monopolize the US, so I have to completely kowtow to the small states. Time to take it back. Well, if we're starting over, it's time to readjust the roles of local/state v. federal government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Well, if we're starting over, it's time to readjust the roles of local/state v. federal government! Gotta start somewhere. I have no problem redefining the role of govt so that it makes sense for a modern era. This isnt the 18th century anymore, it makes no sense that we are bound by that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Gotta start somewhere. I have no problem redefining the role of govt so that it makes sense for a modern era. This isnt the 18th century anymore, it makes no sense that we are bound by that logic. Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) The biggest problem with our election system is that less than 60% of the people vote. And yet i'm sure 99.9% have an opinion about it. That's sad. Isn't a big part of that the fact that the EC discourages voting in many areas? Not exactly a lot of motivation for liberals in Alabama and conservative Chicagoans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes. While that's the easy synopsis, it was much, much deeper than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) While that's the easy synopsis, it was much, much deeper than that. That was what the teacher said to the class in Dazed and Confused when they were getting out of school for the summer... Cue Alice Cooper... Edited November 7, 2012 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Isn't a big part of that the fact that the EC discourages voting in many areas? Not exactly a lot of motivation for liberals in Alabama and conservative Chicagoans. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) That was what the teacher said to the class in Dazed and Confused when they were getting out of school for the summer... Lol, ah ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes. Say, man, you got a joint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) You mean like how Daley and Rham won mayoral elections...quite easily, because there is a D next to their name? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) Sorry, richest and most important area of the country, we have to dilute your vote by 700% so the 400 people in north dakota can get a bunch of federal money to build their expensive road to serve 14 people. Suck on that, Wite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) 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. 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. Edited November 7, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) And THIS right here highlights my fear of a national popular vote. Wasn't another guy elected without even campaigning because hes in prison? Here we go. CHICAGO (Reuters) - A former lawmaker from Chicago who was indicted for bribery and expelled by the Illinois House of Representatives won re-election to the state house Tuesday. Former State House Representative Derrick Smith, who represented a staunchly Democratic district in Chicago, was arrested in March and charged with accepting a $7,000 bribe in exchange for endorsing a daycare center's state grant application. Smith has denied the charges. Days after his arrest and indictment, Smith won the Democratic Party primary to contest the November 6 election, in part because some Democrats hoped he would resign and be replaced on the ballot. But Smith refused to bow out, and last August the full Illinois House voted to expel him. Chicago and Illinois have a reputation for political corruption. The previous two governors of the state -- Republican George Ryan and Democrat Rod Blagojevich -- are serving time in federal prisons. Numerous local, county and state Illinois officials have been charged in recent years with taking bribes, accepting kickbacks or other corruption. The last member of the Illinois House to be expelled was Frank Comerford, who was ousted in 1905 for naming other members who had taken money from lobbyists. Comerford subsequently was reelected, the Illinois Secretary of State's office said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) Sorry, richest and most important area of the country, we have to dilute your vote by 700% so the 400 people in north dakota can get a bunch of federal money to build their expensive road to serve 14 people. you realize that i'm not advocating a national popular vote... right?? you're reading into this all backwards. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:04 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. exactly. nobody pays attention (relatively speaking) to ANYTHING below President on the ballot. I didn't know jack s*** about my local people, but I voted straight dem anyway. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe. But it's also something a LOT of people do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) 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. Why would we be giving more weight to the smaller states in the Presidential election? Why should less people have more say? They already get proportionally more weight in the legislature. They already have the senate where even they get equal, regardless of size. I just see no reason why the President should be elected by the states. The President should be the 1 check, that the people get. Why do the people get 0 direct check on the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:21 PM) exactly. nobody pays attention (relatively speaking) to ANYTHING below President on the ballot. I didn't know jack s*** about my local people, but I voted straight dem anyway. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe. But it's also something a LOT of people do lol. And you try to lecture people about wasting their vote? Come on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts