US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

McCain made it to 2012 Not in the Oval office.

Even in a coma it would be hard to imagine him doing worse than the present occupant.

Your opinion. I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

[Kristie]

McCain made it to 2012 Not in the Oval office.

Even in a coma it would be hard to imagine him doing worse than the present occupant.

Your opinion. I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

+1

[Robert_S]

McCain made it to 2012 Not in the Oval office.

Even in a coma it would be hard to imagine him doing worse than the present occupant.

Your opinion. I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

+1

Obama hasn't succeeded until Mississippi (goddamn) has tried to secede again.

[ScholasticSpastic]

If I'm still in Utah I plan to vote for the Socialist candidate. Not because I think it'll help, but because the voters here march in lock-step and there's nothing I can do about it. Voting Socialist ensures that my vote will count. Possibly, it'll count for 50%.

[Ian]

If I'm still in Utah I plan to vote for the Socialist candidate. Not because I think it'll help, but because the voters here march in lock-step and there's nothing I can do about it. Voting Socialist ensures that my vote will count. Possibly, it'll count for 50%.

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy. I've got three main reasons:

1) Disproportionate representation. I don't have exact figures right now (and they'll shift once the 2010 Census is published), but the numbers of Electors is not directly tied to the populations of each state. Voters like to think it's roughly equal, but it's not. For example, in North Dakota there's something like one Elector for every 300k people, whereas in California it's something like one Elector for every 900k. So a single person's vote is three times more likely to sway an Elector's vote in North Dakota than in California. That's a massive injustice, and it's not fair to any state's citizens - certainly not to the under-represented ones like in California.

2) National campaigns are too battleground-centric. Except for occasional landslide elections, close contests always come down to a handful of battleground states. All things being equal, California and New York vote Democrat, Texas votes Republican, etc. And those examples also happen to be the three biggest states in the union! But often times the political issues in those states aren't addressed as much as industry outsourcing in Ohio or Medicare in Florida, because those smaller states are politically split down the middle. Presidential candidates rarely even show up in thoroughly blue or red states except to do fundraising.

3) Disinclination towards citizen involvement. There are Republicans in places like Massachusets and Maryland, and there are Democrats in places like Utah and Alabama. But how inclined are those minority citizens to become involved in a campaign (or even bother to vote) if their state's Electors are all but guaranteed to vote for the other party's guy? As a Democrat, I sure wouldn't want to knock on doors in Idaho. But if I were only thinking about the national vote instead of my state's Electors, I might actually have that conversation with my neighbor who's on the fence about a candidate.

The solution? Do away with the Electoral College! If Presidential candidates really do have to win over the national popular vote, they'll have to look beyond which states they can ignore and which states they can win, and concentrate on the people of the entire nation. More people will become involved, more issues will be addressed in more areas, and it will be truer to the principles of democracy.

[Pappa]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

[Robert_S]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

It does see rather odd when the rest of the US constitution is pretty straightforward. But then you take this into account and it makes more sense.

[Ian]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

It does see rather odd when the rest of the US constitution is pretty straightforward. But then you take this into account and it makes more sense.

Getting rid of the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn't too easy. The Electoral College will be even tougher.

People in this country, conservatives especially, have a real knee-jerk reaction to tinkering with anything the Founding Fathers created, as if the country will fall to pieces if we improvise this or do away with that - even if this or that have turned out to be a burden. But the founders didn't all share some glorious, united vision for how our country should work forever. They played politics with each other and compromised their ideas to agree upon a settled package, and the code of laws we have today is the result.

[Robert_S]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

It does see rather odd when the rest of the US constitution is pretty straightforward. But then you take this into account and it makes more sense.

Getting rid of the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn't too easy. The Electoral College will be even tougher.

People in this country, conservatives especially, have a real knee-jerk reaction to tinkering with anything the Founding Fathers created, as if the country will fall to pieces if we improvise this or do away with that - even if this or that have turned out to be a burden. But the founders didn't all share some glorious, united vision for how our country should work forever. They played politics with each other and compromised their ideas to agree upon a settled package, and the code of laws we have today is the result.

I still like to take every opportunity to point out where the college probably came from, just to add to our nations collective embarrassment over it. If enough people do likewise, it might be gotten rid of a generation or two sooner.

At the same time, I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

[Coito ergo sum]

Given what he inherited, he did pretty well.

? Wuh? LOL - in what way? In 11/08, it was expected that things would be WORSE than near 10% unemployment and 20% underemployment (double what we had under Bush)? Funny...the Obama administration said unemployment would not rise above 8% - that was their expected limit.

McCain was the guy who said wars were good for America.

Quote? Link?

He said this, " War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. "

[Coito ergo sum]

McCain made it to 2012 Not in the Oval office.

Even in a coma it would be hard to imagine him doing worse than the present occupant.

Your opinion.

You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

Your opinion.

If you are willing, please explain the basis for your opinion, other than wishful thinking. I've explained the basis for my opinion that he has done an awful job previously.

[Coito ergo sum]

McCain made it to 2012 Not in the Oval office.

Even in a coma it would be hard to imagine him doing worse than the present occupant.

Your opinion. I think the present occupant is doing an excellent job.

+1

He has done an excellent job making things worse.

[Trolldor]

I'm sure you have a firm grasp of the obvious.

But as is well documented, the obvious is almost always wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd like to take this opportunity to gripe about the Electoral College system. I think it's deeply, horribly flawed and counterproductive towards democracy.

I remember my reaction when first hearing about the vagaries of the Electoral College system. It was something like --->

On the plus side, it reassured me that even the US can have woefully anachronistic Governmental traditions and practices too.

It does see rather odd when the rest of the US constitution is pretty straightforward. But then you take this into account and it makes more sense.

Getting rid of the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn't too easy. The Electoral College will be even tougher.

People in this country, conservatives especially, have a real knee-jerk reaction to tinkering with anything the Founding Fathers created, as if the country will fall to pieces if we improvise this or do away with that - even if this or that have turned out to be a burden. But the founders didn't all share some glorious, united vision for how our country should work forever. They played politics with each other and compromised their ideas to agree upon a settled package, and the code of laws we have today is the result.

I still like to take every opportunity to point out where the college probably came from, just to add to our nations collective embarrassment over it. If enough people do likewise, it might be gotten rid of a generation or two sooner.

At the same time, I do like some aspects of the way we seem to hold our constitution sacred. It makes it harder to hack away at the Bill of Rights.

Why the heck would our country be "embarrassed" by the electoral college system?

1. When our republic was being formed, there were a total of ZERO other republics to which to compare the US. The rest of the world was ruled by Kings and Emperors.

2. The electoral college, in an agrarian society consisting of separate and sovereign states with an extremely limited federal government makes a fair amount of sense. The electors would be chosen in whatever manner the individual states saw fit, whether popular vote, vote of state legislatures, etc. Those electors were sent to Washington to vote for the President.

3. Heck, at least we're not living under the British or Canadian systems, where the Prime Minister holds executive powers, but is elected by the members of Parliament holding a majority, and not popular vote at all. If we make our system like theirs, then everyone would just vote for their Congressman or woman, and then since the Democrats control the House, Nancy Pelosi would be Prime Congresswoman (wielding executive power). And, at least in the US we vote for Senators, and they aren't just appointed (in Canada, Senators are appointed by the Governour General). The House of Lords - the upper chamber in the British Parliament - is even worse - by inheritance, appointment or because they are high up in the church! (Lords Spiritual).

4. In the US, the electoral college is largely irrelevant, and has been for generations. All of the states use a popular vote system to appoint electors and the electors follow the popular vote. The only real "problem" with the electoral college is not really a problem at all - and that is that states don't have an exactly proportional number of electors. All states get 2 electors, minimum, regardless of how small or large their populations, and and then the rest of the electors are allocated by population. This results in a very slight shifting of electoral power from large, populous states to less populous states. It has the effect of making it just a little bit easier for a candidate to offset California with a few other states. If the US went to a pure popular election, then the President would, even more than it is now, be almost exclusively chosen by California, New York, Texas, Illinois and Florida.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure you have a firm grasp of the obvious.

But as is well documented, the obvious is almost always wrong.