| Author |
|
Bruce Buchanan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 June 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4797
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:14am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Here's an interesting article on the race to win Pennsylvania, a state with a huge number of votes and a history of close elections.
Obama currently has an 11-point lead in the polls, but even Democrats believe the final margin will be considerably tighter. It's a state McCain almost has to carry to win the election. I thought it was a good read.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
L’Homme Diabolique
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this has been posted already:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:31am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
"How about the Amateur Americans? Y'know, those of us who are in it just for the love of it?"
Big Laugh! Perfect, my thanks.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jason wrote:
| "The irony though is that the Electoral College does just the opposite, creating a small class of voters (the "swing state" voters) whose votes carry a hugely disproportionate amount of influence on the outcome of the election. And it allows candidates to basically ignore the issues and concerns of states where there is a clear frontrunner with a commanding lead. This does not seem right and I doubt it was what the founding fathers intended when they created the system. The amount of swing states and which states they are varies, but in every election there are states whose votes matter "more" than others to the outcome of the election. |
|
|
And? The very fact that you admit that "the amount of swing states and which states they are varies" serves to highlight both the worth and one of the central functions of the Electoral College System. There is no irony in the notion of a system working as intended, Jason.
No issue truly vital to the voters of states such as, for example, California or Texas are 'ignored', Jason. Far, far from it, in point of fact. States such as these, indeed, directly inform the very platforms of the candidates; with smaller states left to eke out their own standing in relation to those overarching platforms. The platforms are directly drawn to conform to the broad political will of heavyweight states like California, Texas, and New York and states falling somewhere between these possible extremes are then, differing every generation or so, the immediate ground upon which the election is decided...but ALWAYS with the knowledge that the prerequisite worth of the most populous states informs the very initial direction of the campaigns.
There is nothing "hugely disproportionate" about the "amount of influence" of Wyoming's three paltry electoral votes. In no instance could they ever matter more than, for instance, Texas' full thirty-four electoral votes. And, since we don't vote directly for a presidential candidate, but only for our respective state's slate of electors, there is no disproportionality in any practical sense. You're seeking to forge a corollary where none is naturally offered.
QUOTE:
| The old joke about the NBA is that since most games are very close and the lead changes rapidly, they could save time by giving both teams 100 points and just having them play for ten minutes. In most US Presidential elections the same thing is true... they could just spot each candidate 200 electoral votes and then let the swing states decide it. The Electoral College also gives a unfairly disproportionate edge to people in smaller states, since the amount of electors each state has is based on, but not directly proportional to, the population of the state. Your vote literally counts for more electoral votes if you are from a smaller state. |
|
|
You would likewise do away with the checks and balances role provided by the Senate of the United States of America, Jason, and our very nature as a republic? By your offered rationale, you have no choice but to carry your argument to its logical end. Why even have an executive branch bridging the wills of states united in a purpose, this being the case, Jason? Hey, we are not a goddamned democracy, we are a republic.
As it is, no states carry more bedrock heft than California and Texas, yet that they, more often than not, vote as they do in presidential elections is merely a by-product of the inertia of their enormous populations and broadly governing political mindsets. And, of course, the very fact that the major political parties tailor their platforms to cater directly to those states as the very basis of their campaigns. Let California demonstrate a leaning for a Republican candidate in the next election or Texas for the Democrat--through that candidate failing to formulate a platform or general campaign designed to appeal to either electorate-- and watch the show begin.
We do not vote directly for the candidate to the office of the President, we vote only for our states slate of electors, our state's collective will...and it is in this nature as a republic that we have endured and prospered for more than two-hundred years.
QUOTE:
| It is an antiquated system originally designed to prevent the public from directly electing the President. I don't think anyone supports that notion anymore, and the disproportionate voter representation that emerges as a byproduct of the system is a serious flaw. |
|
|
You don't think anyone supports that notion? Really?
The fact that there is no firm movement alight to attempt repeal of the Electoral College System in America speaks volumes as to our own national thoughts on the matter. But, Jason, looking further, would you like to give me an example of a few large, well-developed nations who support the direct election of anything comparable to the powers residing in our executive branch? Now, think about it...
Oh, and what's antiquated about the system? I'd argue it was never more relevant given the huge population disparity now existing in the United States of America.
Jason, my support for the Electoral College System isn't based on an overly stodgy "traditionalist" or constructionist view...it's based simply on the fact that absolutely nothing better presents itself with an eye towards the same sorts of safeguards and effectiveness.
Edited by Michael Myers on 23 October 2008 at 11:16am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:55am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
How is it not better that every individual American's vote for President be
tallied and the choice for President be decided on the very direct basis of
which candidate received more votes?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 10:57am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
Mike Myers,
It looks like a new Bretton Woods conference fight is brewing. I saw the headline on CNBC yesterday and it said something about Bretton Woods Part Deux and I am a bit surprised this push is coming from the French president (at least some of it) but we will see how it goes. This is going to be a very interesting meeting Bush has scheduled.
Have you heard anything about it? Ideas? Comments? |
|
|
Hey, Mike. Yep, but you realize as well as I do that this is simply yet another economic conference expanded beyond the G8 to include, at last count, nineteen developed/semi-developed economies. The theoretical goals as so far expressed revolve around the notion of some hazy, ill-designated regulation of international trading, etc. Not anything close to the notions you had espoused concerning a true "Bretton Woods, Part Deux" as it would relate to yours and LaRouche's "credit-based, fixed exchange rate" formulation. Any ideas along those lines simply aren't going to happen.
As it is, Bretton Woods is simply a catch-phrase people have latched on to, as Bretton Woods carries a far greater historical significance for Europeans than ever it did for Americans. Europe is set to experience a downturn outstripping anything in America, and the natural response is one of nostalgia. This, despite the fact that Bretton Woods stacked the deck irrevocably in America's favor for decades.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 11:00am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Todd wrote:
| "I understand this. And that's part of what's antiquated about the system. As I mentioned above, the system was put into place when distance from "large clusters of the national body politic" quite realistically cut individuals off from the flow of information and communication to allow for an informed decision in voting, travel to and from those areas for campaigning was more time-consuming and problematic in relation to the percieved value of the return of votes, travel to and from the polls was equally problematic, and a quick efficient means of tabulating and reporting each vote cast did not exist, making it somewhat logical to employ a method of sampling the populace and extrapolating that sample (a la the Nielsen ratings). |
|
|
Todd, your summation was never the guiding rationale for the Electoral College System. Jason's later summation is far closer to the truth. Nor is the Electoral College System, by any stretch of the imagination, a mere case of statistical sampling.
QUOTE:
| However, we live in a time in which too many still believe that allowing each individual to have a vote (as opposed to a fraction of a vote) will somehow cause mass confusion and chaos and "small states" will be ignored. And that just doesn't make sense. If more people in those "small states" prefer Candidate A over Candidate B, then that will still be reflected in their votes. |
|
|
Again, no eligible voter suffers their respective vote to be devalued to a "fraction of a vote." Eligible voters cast their vote for, in this case, their state's slate of electors. One person, one vote. The fact that states like Wyoming enjoy the bare minimum of 3 electoral votes is no different from the disproportionate vote alloted them in our senate and has NO bearing upon the counting of votes in any state. That last is what seems to be evading your grasp. We in Texas vote for Texas' slate of electors; those in Wyoming vote for the respective slate of electors in Wyoming. That's it, il finito. As Wyoming and Texas are two seperate political entities, they then proceed to cast their collective allotment of electoral votes.
There is NO corollary to a direct election for the office of the President of the United States. Todd, the simple fact is that the will of the majority IS reflected under our current system. Any anamolies in the system are just that...three different instances over the course of more than two-hundred years...and the direct result of the system working as intended in maintenance of a republic of *united* states. Have you looked at the electoral map of election 2000, for instance?
QUOTE:
| "At the end of the day, it isn't "one vote," either. It's an infinitesimal fraction of a vote, its exact value dependent upon turnout at the polls and the number of electoral votes afforded the state. |
|
|
No, Todd. It is precisely "one person, one vote" in every state employing the winner-take-all electoral system. The same is true of Nebraska and Maine, currently; and was true of any of the eight other states which practiced one form of Congressional Districting allotment or another in the past but dispensed with it as either unwieldy or redundant, or both. Your difficulty seems, again, to be accepting the fact that we vote only for our respective state's slate of electors.
The fact of the matter is that Wyoming's three electoral votes will never carry the weight of Texas' thirty-four electoral votes, but there is no viable manner in which we may give them less while maintaining our form of federal government...nor is there a rational reason, in the practical sense, for even contemplating such a move.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 11:08am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Al, every eligible, individual vote is tallied. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine, the slate of electors naturally goes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote of that state. In the case of Nebraska-with a Congressional District allotment scheme similar to Maine's-the slate has never, to my knowledge, been split among candidates since its reintroduction. Nationally, the popular vote has diverged..what? Three instances spread out over two-hundred plus years?
BTW, how's that direct election of the Prime Minister working out in Canada?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I am aware that our system is different here in Canada.
You haven't answered the nature of my question.
Those individually tallied votes cast by individual citizens for the presidency
are not directly applied to the outcome of the Presidential election.
How is this a superior way of doing things?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Trevor Giberson
Byrne Robotics Chronology
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1888
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 11:57am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I've got some questions about this Acorn business, as I don't really understand it.
1.
Is this voter fraud, or voter-registration fraud? Meaning, is
there a danger of Mickey Mouse, etc. showing up and voting?
2. Is
the Democratic Party trying to get people to vote under fake IDs? Is
this just empty political spin by Republicans?
3.
Is the Republican Party trying to stop newly registered voters from
voting out of fear that they will vote Democrat? Is this just empty political spin by the Democrats?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 17820
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 12:24pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
1. Is this voter fraud, or voter-registration fraud? Meaning, is there a danger of Mickey Mouse, etc. showing up and voting? It is an issue of voter registration fraud. If Mickey Mouse shows up to vote, then there's a possibility that a Disney character may be in the White House in 2012.
2. Is the Democratic Party trying to get people to vote under fake IDs? Is this just empty political spin by Republicans? It looks as though some individuals have engaged in that behavior, but not at the behest of the Democratic Party or Acorn.
3. Is the Republican Party trying to stop newly registered voters from voting out of fear that they will vote Democrat? There is no way to know for sure; however, since Acorn is required to turn in ll registration forms, and the "fake names" names won't be allowed to vote anyway, it does seem ti be much ado about nothing. Is just empty political spin by the Democrats? Hmmm...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Talley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5123
|
| Posted: 23 October 2008 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Next season on Dancing with the Stars.........
He's going to be busy in the White House, but I believe her calendar will be clear.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
