The new Primary Thread

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by snoopy369

2)If the republicans win again with less votes than the democrats (like when Bush defeated Gore) Could the electoral system be changed? (or at least would there be a serious debate about it?)

Another conversation about this is apparently necessary

The electoral system exists for the purpose of allowing, occasionally, presidents who do not win the popular vote in the entire country to win. This is not precisely true, but it gets the message across.

The Electoral College exists for the (real) purpose of giving each state a meaningful say in the election of the President, that is not exclusively connected to the population. Just like the Senate exists to give states that are less populous a say in our government, so does the electoral college for the president.

Having each state independently determine its votes for the President, and then taking those votes and tallying up the presidential election, means that states like New Mexico suddenly become relevant, because of its five or six electoral votes (should be 6 at some point soon, I think - maybe 2010 census?).

If it were strictly national popular vote, then who would care about the ~10,000 votes that differentiate NM being a blue state from a red? Nobody... everyone would campaign in CA, TX, NY, and a few other states, trying to sway voters their way, and NM, AZ, WY, and other less populous states would be irrelevant.

Ultimately, it is that the US is (still) a federal system, to at least a minimal extent, where every state gets a say in federal governance. This is not a bad thing, and the fact that occasionally a president might be elected by slightly less than a majority does not change this.

Besides, there's absolutely no chance (thank god!) that any amendment on this nature would pass - 3/4 of the states would need to ratify it, and there are quite a few states that would lose power by doing so.

Your point on each states proportional voice is well taken.

However, this does not really explain why 49% of people in every state have no voice.

While first past the post increases campaiging in small, fractious states, the current system means candidates barely bother campaigning in those states of any size that are polling to be clear wins.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's kind of weird for some reason.

It is filled with a lot of patriotism but what I like about it is it isn't the phony flag waving sort. For the first time since the 1960's it seems like there is an American leader who is asking us to be better then we have been and who can actually inspire hope and work towards a common cause. And it seems to cut across racial or party lines unlike Reagan in 1980 or Bush in 2000.

Is it real? The people supporting him are real enough. I'm not sure if he can actually bring about the change he wants (and has yet to even spell it out in detail) but with every election since 1992 (the first one I can really remember in detail) there is a candidate who isn't just the better of two evils. That's a nice feeling.

[The Mad Viking]

As a more experienced fellow, I tend to be more pragmatic.

When I was younger, I used to believe that having a leader who was not experienced in the political system was an advantage, because the political system is such a big part of the problem.

This is the spin the Obama camp is putting out now.

I have seen, over and over, brilliant, energetic, caring people bash themselves to bloody shreds against a system that doesn't even notice the flesh caught in its gears.

I'm quite sure Obama is a better person than Hilary. But for me, Hilary is good enough to care, and mean enough to do what needs done.

That she lived through the 8 years with Bill, and still wants to do the job of President, means a great deal. Bill aged 20 years over those two terms, and that is not really that unusual.

By the time Obama and his people figure out how to get things done, it will be Election 2012.

Given how close they really are on policy, I would want someone who know how to navigate the DC sewers.

Her health care plan, to me, is quite brilliant.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Your point on each states proportional voice is well taken.

However, this does not really explain why 49% of people in every state have no voice.

While first past the post increases campaiging in small, fractious states, the current system means candidates barely bother campaigning in those states of any size that are polling to be clear wins.

That's entirely up to the states, actually, not controlled by the federal government. Maine and Nebraska do have some proportional vote; they've never split their votes, according to wiki, as they're both pretty solidly one-party states, but they could in theory. It's entirely feasible for California to allocate its electoral votes to its districts individually (as asked for earlier), but they choose not to for a very logical reason.

Any split of electoral votes deprives the state as a whole from some of its say in the electoral process.

Take Ohio, for example, in 2004. They have 20 EVs (I think still in 2004), and narrowly cast them in favor of Bush. Those 20 gave Bush the victory, and a few thousand votes the other way gives Kerry the presidency. Pretty nice to have that power, isn't it?

Now, give Ohio proportional votes. What happens?

Kerry and Bush both get 10, and Ohio's net EV is 0.

Zero.

Nada.

The state has absolutely no effect on the presidential voting whatsoever, and as a result voters in Ohio might as well have stayed home from the polls.

Any time you split your votes, you essentially choose to give up some of your power in the election. True, 49% are not represented - but isn't that always true (if it's a 51-49 split)? That's not the same thing as 'they have no say'; they made their say, they just lost. Someone always loses, and that's the nature of a representative government; the majority have most of the say, generally more so than their majority percentage indicates.

[The Mad Viking]

If Huckabee the Baptist throw his Lot in with Mitt the Morman, will McCain be Fried?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Flubber


Agreed-- Isn't there a big bias in a LOT of phone surveys since they typically use 'land-line' phone numbers and don't tab into the people that use cells only?

That's an entirely different story... but short answer - yes

I suspect some of these political surveys may be using cell numbers; and that is one interesting question on the SE topic. If some are exclusively using cells, some use a mixture, and some use land lines, there is a huge sampling differential on their results.

That's why I don't like these survey summary sites, any more than I like game review metasites (metacritic). They simplify things to the point of being incredibly misleading - and that means the surveys have no meaning. I could go anourd the office, get 100 responses, and post that as a survey - but it would be an incredibly biased one. I'd rather a list of surveys without listing results and then just select them individually from links to see the details; or, better, give all the details. I don't mind the idea of a composite score - as long as you know the incredibly huge SE of such a thing - but giving all the scores individually gives such a feeling of accuracy that is totally incorrect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunately it may be too late if he does it after Super Tuesday.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm not talking stubbornness; I much prefer a politician who changes his/her mind when there is new information that affects the decision. However, I don't like it when politicians say, "At the time, I should have voted the other way"; based on what knowledge they had in 2002, they should have voted the way they did. Perhaps the Bush administration knew better at the time; but the Senate didn't, certainly. Senators who come out now and say, "I should have been against the war in 2002" I have nothing but disdain for. I have respect for those who say, "Based on what I knew in 2002, I supported the war; I no longer support it based on what has happened and what I know now".

Firstly, I don't buy the whole "based on what I knew at the time" argument. I had less access to intelligence resources than Hillary Clinton did, and I was against the war from the start. Nobody had more information than the Senators - and if they needed more, they had more access than anyone else in America. To say that she made that decision "based on the info she had at the time" and still made a horrible mistake speaks to the failure of her judgment.

It shouldn't even have been a matter of intelligence. Iraq had never attacked us, there was no extant connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda - there was simply no comprehensible reason for attacking Iraq regardless of whether they had "WMDs" or not.

And we're not talking a minor mistake here. Every last member of Congress who voted for this war has, as far as I am concerned, the blood of thousands of people on their hands. A truly respectable person would resign in shame. At the very least, someone should apologize. If I were in Congress and had voted for the war, I would be asking myself what more I could have done, what questions I could have asked, what could I have said to stop this monstrous injustice - and I would be asking myself those questions a lot. There is no question that I would apologize for my role in the conflict, whether I thought it was "based on information I had at the time" or not.

[Arrian]

Obama or Hillary, that is the question...

I'm a big flip-flopper lately. Can't decide.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Any split of electoral votes deprives the state as a whole from some of its say in the electoral process.

Take Ohio, for example, in 2004. They have 20 EVs (I think still in 2004), and narrowly cast them in favor of Bush. Those 20 gave Bush the victory, and a few thousand votes the other way gives Kerry the presidency. Pretty nice to have that power, isn't it?

Now, give Ohio proportional votes. What happens?

Kerry and Bush both get 10, and Ohio's net EV is 0.

Zero.

Nada.

The state has absolutely no effect on the presidential voting whatsoever, and as a result voters in Ohio might as well have stayed home from the polls.

That's pretty piss poor logic, IMO. The state will always have an effect on the voting, it will just do so in a different way. Ohio's 20 EC votes may have tipped the election in Bush's favor, but that was unique to that particular state at that particular time. If, in this next election, Ohio votes exactly the same but the Dems (or the Repubs) are already ahead by 24 EC votes, then Ohio's contribution to the Presidential outcome is jack****, and the voters in Ohio might as well have stayed home.

Edit: Not to mention that if Ohio had split its 20 votes, it still would have decided the election in favor of Bush in 2004. Same power.

[Arrian]

The EC sucks ass. It is, however, not going anywhere for the foreseable future.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
If Huckabee the Baptist throw his Lot in with Mitt the Morman, will McCain be Fried?

Not likely. The fundamentalist protestants, like Southern Baptists, will never agree that Mormons are Christians and that is the basis most of them decide who to vote for. Or at least the devote ones.

Remember these are people often still stuck in the 16th century. They only recently agreed that Catholics were Christians.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Obama or Hillary, that is the question...

I'm a big flip-flopper lately. Can't decide.

-Arrian

Their proposed policies are very similar. What pushed me to Obama are:

(a) Hillary's attempt to twist Obama's observation that Reagan brought about more change than either Nixon or Clinton into an accusation that Obama supported Reagan's policies. Her blantant falsehood showed me she is lacking in intergrity.

(b) Reading Obama's book The Audacity of Hope and its underlying theme that, in politics, your opponent might have valid ideas and valid criticisms of your own ideas. This shows he has an open mind and is the most likely person to go down the correct path rather than the path approved by his parties fanatics.

(c) Obama's abilty to reach across party lines, to bring in independants, Republicans and new voters -- which means he has a better chance that the divisive Hillary to win the election.

He's also the U.S.'s most charismatic politicians since JFK.

[DinoDoc]

You guys better get used to Hillary as your nominee.

[Zkribbler]

Talk to me Wednesday.