|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is the electoral college for?
It's an 18th-century anomaly, left over because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the Mob to have the sense to elect the right person president. At one time, I believe the electors were chosen by the state legislators in some states. Regardless, the Founding Fathers expected the Electors would rarely be able to come to a decision, thereby allowing Congress to decide.
Obviously, it has changed to be a bit more democratic than that, but if you are looking for a rationale for its existence that makes sense, you will be searching for a long, long time.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
One explanation I've heard is that it was designed to prevent the president from claiming a direct mandate from the voters, which he could use to justify asserting dictatorial powers over the other branches of governmnet.
I've also heard it claimed that the EC was contrived to increase the electoral power of slave-holidng states, ie. those states could send representatives to the EC beyond what is justified by their voting population, because the number of reps is tallied according to the population as a whole, which in those days included non-voting slaves.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think Melanie Phillips has simply conflated Lord of the Rings and the US election. Barad Dur Obama is the Dark Lord and Mitt Romneygorn is the king in exile.
The westerners all being white, of course... One vote to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see Texas voted 41% for Obama, so another few years, a million or so more Latinos, and Texas goes blue again! Watch out Mel!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody explain something for me? It may be already covered, but this thread has now reached 70 pages and I haven't been following it. I tried to find out about it four years ago, but didn't succeed. All political cultures have things that are mystifying to foreigners.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
Very short answer, and avoiding the question of whether it is still relevant.
The US Constitution provides for the president of the United States to be elected by electors chosen by each state. The origin of this is somewhat complex and, like many things in politics, a product of compromise, but suffice it to say that the compromise was a result of balancing the concerns of federalism and popularism, as well as getting slave-holding states, not inclined to support popular election, to sign on to the Constitution.
quote:
I know it chooses the President, but why not just count up all the votes? That would give a more reliable result and prevent the situation where a person can become President with less votes than the loser.
This is the reason many give for abolishing the electoral college. Those who would maintain it counter that it recognizes the nature of the country as a federation of states by giving states a voice in the election of the president. James Madison in The Federalist Papers described our system as one that seeks to balance state-based and popular-based government. In Congress, this is accomplished through the House of Representatives, popularly elected from districts, and the Senate, where each state has two senators. Some would say the present system, where electors in each state are chosen by popular vote, seeks to strike the same balance.
quote:
It doesn't, so far as I can see, carry on doing anything the rest of the time. Isn't it the two houses of the Congress that do that? So the President doesn't have to rely on the support of his electors to carry out his policies.
It does nothing at all except elect the president. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention an Electoral College. It simply talks about electors. The "College" appellation is simply the common way of talking about it.
quote:
Who belongs to it? Are they important people, or party nonentities, chosen because they can spare two or three days off work to fly to wherever it meets, vote for their two names and then fly home again?
Does it actually assemble, or can they send in their votes by post?
In I think every state, each political party nominates the requisite number of people as electors. Most if not all states use what's called the "short ballot," which means that the name of the nominees for POTUS and VP are substituted for the names of their party's nominees for elector. So, for example, when one votes for Obama/Biden, one is technically/simultaneously voting for the nominees for elector of his state's Democratic Party.
The EC does not meet as a body. On the Wednesday after the second Monday in December, the electors in each state will meet in their state capitols, cast their votes for POTUS and VP, and then be done. It takes all of 10 minutes. Those votes are then sent to designated officials and the electors' job is finished.
When Congress convenes in January, one of its first tasks will be to convene in joint session, count the votes and officially announce the winner. Of course, at this point, all of that is really ceremonial. But, if the EC fails to elect a president, then it gets dicier.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Not quite sure how that posted three times, but if a Host feels like cleaning it up, I'd be grateful. If not, I'm sure we'll be on the next page soon enough...
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Not quite sure how that posted three times, but if a Host feels like cleaning it up, I'd be grateful. If not, I'm sure we'll be on the next page soon enough...
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody explain something for me? It may be already covered, but this thread has now reached 70 pages and I haven't been following it. I tried to find out about it four years ago, but didn't succeed. All political cultures have things that are mystifying to foreigners.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
Very short answer, and avoiding the question of whether it is still relevant.
The US Constitution provides for the president of the United States to be elected by electors chosen by each state. The origin of this is somewhat complex and, like many things in politics, a product of compromise, but suffice it to say that the compromise was a result of balancing the concerns of federalism and popularism, as well as getting slave-holding states, not inclined to support popular election, to sign on to the Constitution.
quote:
I know it chooses the President, but why not just count up all the votes? That would give a more reliable result and prevent the situation where a person can become President with less votes than the loser.
This is the reason many give for abolishing the electoral college. Those who would maintain it counter that it recognizes the nature of the country as a federation of states by giving states a voice in the election of the president. James Madison in The Federalist Papers described our system as one that seeks to balance state-based and popular-based government. In Congress, this is accomplished through the House of Representatives, popularly elected from districts, and the Senate, where each state has two senators. Some would say the present system, where electors in each state are chosen by popular vote, seeks to strike the same balance.
quote:
It doesn't, so far as I can see, carry on doing anything the rest of the time. Isn't it the two houses of the Congress that do that? So the President doesn't have to rely on the support of his electors to carry out his policies.
It does nothing at all except elect the president. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention an Electoral College. It simply talks about electors. The "College" appellation is simply the common way of talking about it.
quote:
Who belongs to it? Are they important people, or party nonentities, chosen because they can spare two or three days off work to fly to wherever it meets, vote for their two names and then fly home again?
Does it actually assemble, or can they send in their votes by post?
In I think every state, each political party nominates the requisite number of people as electors. Most if not all states use what's called the "short ballot," which means that the name of the nominees for POTUS and VP are substituted for the names of their party's nominees for elector. So, for example, when one votes for Obama/Biden, one is technically/simultaneously voting for the nominees for elector of his state's Democratic Party.
The EC does not meet as a body. On the Wednesday after the second Monday in December, the electors in each state will meet in their state capitols, cast their votes for POTUS and VP, and then be done. It takes all of 10 minutes. Those votes are then sent to designated officials and the electors' job is finished.
When Congress convenes in January, one of its first tasks will be to convene in joint session, count the votes and officially announce the winner. Of course, at this point, all of that is really ceremonial. But, if the EC fails to elect a president, then it gets dicier.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at her point that Obama was being persuaded not to kill Bin Laden, which, she says, is 'not substantiated but all too credible'.
That is priceless really. He did kill Bin Laden, but it's very credible that he might not have. Is there a name for this? Counter-factual lunacy, I suppose.
Counter-counter-counter-factual!
I want the President of America to do kill Mr X
The President probably won't kill Mr X because he is a secret supporter of X so I hate him.
The President claims to have had X killed.
Obviously he didn't because he's not the sort of person who would. So I hate him.
There are witnesses to the killing.
Obviously he tried to stop it but they did it anyway. So I hate him.
There are witnesses to the President giving the order.
Well, then obviously he would have prefered not to have given the order but was only doing it because he had to because he was President and it was his job. So I hate him.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Since we seem to keep coming back to it and since it's only tangentially related to the specifics of the 2012 US elections, I've started an Electoral College thread, starting with Enoch's post on the subject.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
The thing they have in common is that they are less likely to buy into the notion of the American Dream -- in different ways they have both learned that it's bullshit.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Something for supposedly professional columnists to consider when writing about America's first African-American president: is the use of metaphors like "darkness" or "black" to express your distaste for Obama absolutely necessary to making your case? And is that case important enough to make that you're comfortable having your writing cited with approval for your likely unintended meaning on websites like Stormfront?
Ms Phillips isn't that stupid. She meant it. Her political views overlap considerably with those of Stormfront. In everything apart from anti-semitism of course - and on that issue the neo-Nazis probably think she is a gift. They can point to her and ask their dupes if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion really seem any weirder.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If you analyze things closely enough, you can probably find similar APPARENT switches in other countries.
In Britain the Tories were the pro-Europe party in the 50s and 60s, the parties were split on it in the 70s, and since the 80s Labour has been pro-Europe and the Conservatives anti-Europe.
Also a certain amount of switching on Free Trade - which has at times been the biggest issue in British politics. Tories were anti in the early 19th century, pro- in mid-century, anti again in late 19th and for most of the 20th century. Liberals were consistently pro Free Trade in 19th century, split on the issue around 1900, with the anti Free-Traders joining their Liberal Unionist co-conspirators in a big Tory tent, and the Liberal Free Trader rump running the country for a few years until everyone noticed they hardly existed any more, then vanishing in a puff of purple smoke. Labour replaced them, starting off as pro Free Trade, and drifting anti until from the 40s to the 70s it was almost entirely virulently protectionist. Liberals agreed to differ with eachother.
Then the Tories suddently switched from protectionism to free trade in the 1970s, leading the charge that way under Thatcher, to be followed by Labour in the 1980s. By the 1990s Labour was if anything more in favour of free trade than the Tories - who are possibly drifting back the other way due to their opposition to Europe and to immigration. Meanwhile, no-one cares what the Liberals think any more.
It might seem esoteric to most people but governments used to fall on this issue.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Many Asians and Hispanics of all education/income levels are very invested in the idea of the American Dream so maybe it's mainly whites who have given up on it since part of the dream is them being in complete control.
As for demographics, Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama and Republicans for Romney and Indpenedents were basically split. So party line voting with regard to the two parties and Independents remain split.
in 2004 when two white males ran:
Whites went 41 Kerry 58 Bush
Blacks 88 /11
Hispanics 53/44
Asians 57/43
Women. 51/48
Republicans 6/93
Democrates 89/11
Independents 50/48
In 2012
Whites 39 Obama 59 Romney
Blacks 93/6
Hispanics 71/27
Asian 73/26
Women 55/44
Republicans. 6/93
Democrats 92/7
Independents 45/50
I don't think the outcome was changed by one demographic shifting but the fact that several did. The Republicans are losing Hispanics, Asians and women and I don't think it is because the Democratic candidate is black.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
The thing they have in common is that they are less likely to buy into the notion of the American Dream -- in different ways they have both learned that it's bullshit.
I misspoke in my post -- the first group was those who had never attended high school. I wonder whether they are mostly immigrants, as it isn't easy to avoid HS in this country. If so, it may be a quite different dynamic than you are imagining. FWIW
--Tom Clune
[ 08. November 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back at the actual OP from last year:
quote:
Originally posted by 205 [though when yoiu look at it it calls him "moron"]
A poll out this week showed Feinstein with the highest negatives in her nearly 20 years in the Senate.
A poll held THIS week returned Ms Feinstein to the Senate with two thirds of the popular vote
Do you want your words with mustard or ketchup? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Also a certain amount of switching on Free Trade - which has at times been the biggest issue in British politics. Tories were anti in the early 19th century, pro- in mid-century, anti again in late 19th and for most of the 20th century. Liberals were consistently pro Free Trade in 19th century, split on the issue around 1900, with the anti Free-Traders joining their Liberal Unionist co-conspirators in a big Tory tent, and the Liberal Free Trader rump running the country for a few years until everyone noticed they hardly existed any more, then vanishing in a puff of purple smoke. Labour replaced them, starting off as pro Free Trade, and drifting anti until from the 40s to the 70s it was almost entirely virulently protectionist. Liberals agreed to differ with eachother.
Yeah, the Canadian Liberals and Tories did a similar switch on free-trade in the latter part of the C20. Though after the FTA(precursor to NAFTA) was passed in 1984, the Liberals went back to being, at least de facto, pro-free trade. In their substantial time in governmnet, they never did anything to roll back the agreement.
[ 08. November 2012, 16:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So in relation to 'he won because he's black', Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and Obama got 93%. How does that compute?
Whites voted slightly less for O than K, and Latinos quite a bit more for O.
So did O being black attract Latino votes, and hence won him the election?
Hmm, I would like to see a proper analysis of that one!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So in relation to 'he won because he's black', Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and Obama got 93%. How does that compute?
Whites voted slightly less for O than K, and Latinos quite a bit more for O.
So did O being black attract Latino votes, and hence won him the election?
Hmm, I would like to see a proper analysis of that one!
No it is Republican attitudes towards Hispanic/Latinos, their support of people like Governor Brewer and her racial profiling of citizens. and the demonization of undocumented workers with no real work towards immigration reform that have pushed Hispanic/Latinos out of the Republican Party.
Also there is quite a bit of tension between blacks and Latinos in many parts of this country and I don't think you'll find a lot of Hispanics that would choose him simply based on race.
[ 08. November 2012, 17:09: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Not quite sure how that posted three times, but if a Host feels like cleaning it up, I'd be grateful. If not, I'm sure we'll be on the next page soon enough...
Ditto. And on my end, it was showing as never having gone through the first time.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.
So did O being black attract Latino votes, and hence won him the election?
Hmm, I would like to see a proper analysis of that one!
It is a common fallacy for a group to celebrate its own uniqueness whilst looking at other groups and assume a commonality, hence a sympathy. Each group is doing the same thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
It's important to also look at some of what Obama has done like nominating a Latina to the Supreme Court, fighting the unconstitutional provisions in Arizona's immigration law and In June he announced that his administration would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants who met the requirments the DREAM ACT.
He has actively worked to get Hispanic/Latino votes.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I've murdered the duplicates, and there were loads. Dunno whether this was comms or our ancient software having a brain-fart, but I'll keep my eyes open and ask a Q or two on Host Board.
B62 Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back in Florida Officialdom, the result is not expected before this weekend..
Actually, Obama is ahead by about 56,000 votes and about 0.65%. Margins have widened during the day as absentee ballots have trickled into the account.
Not surprised Romney's campaign have conceded. But it's a bit of a "rum do" all round.
[ 08. November 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What IS it with Florida? Why do they always seem to be last in line to get the vote count in?
It's not like they have the most voters.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What IS it with Florida? Why do they always seem to be last in line to get the vote count in?
It's not like they have the most voters.
They have a mandatory recount at 0.5% difference and a very divided state.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yeah, but they probably won't have to do a recount, and other states are also very divided. The reason it takes so long is that they have a hideously long and complicated ballot and not enough stations at polling places. See the sample ballot from Miami-Dade County here. Some Republican thought it would be a good idea to print the text of each ballot measure on the friggin' ballots.
[ 09. November 2012, 01:11: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Holy cheese on toast. I think my eyes would explode in my head if I were faced with that.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ye Gods. It makes the metre-plus-long ballot from the 1988 ACT election look like a walk in the park. At least it was easy to spot the VOTING BOXES on that one.
PS What's the third language on there? I'm usually good with languages but I can't pick that one at the moment.
[ 09. November 2012, 01:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Portuguese.
Took me a minute.
No, so totally wrong-- it seems to be some sort of Haitian language...
[ 09. November 2012, 01:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Haitian Creole.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think Ruth has it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Here's my sample ballot -- we got this whole thing in the mail, and then at the ballot booth we saw just pages 8-13 (the actual ballot, numbered 1-6).
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Our ballots come in 10 different languages, so when you register to vote, you tell them your preferred language. They mail you everything in just that one, and then at the polls, they have ballots in 10 languages. The trick is to have enough of each language.
ETA: I do have a point, here -- Florida wouldn't have to put all three languages on one ballot.
[ 09. November 2012, 01:41: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Wow. That must be expensive as well as time-consuming. Three-color printing?!
Once upon a time I lived in Miami. Back then, the phone and light bills came in Spanish and English. That was it. I was only there long enough to vote in one election, and the only thing I remember about it was standing in a long line to get into some sort of trailer with no air-conditioning where the actual polling stations were.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Typical Canadian ballot (scroll down)
A mark in the circle counts as a vote, one mark only and it can't be identifying so no letters or initials. Elections Canada tells everyone to make an X just for clarity.
The problems come in registration. Canada permits same-day registration at the poll on voting day. A Certificate of Registration has to be completed by the Deputy Returning Officer and Poll Clerk and the change noted in the Poll Book. Lack of sufficient paperwork and lazy poll staff led to a Supreme Court of Canada appeal last month that upheld the result.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Here's my sample ballot -- we got this whole thing in the mail, and then at the ballot booth we saw just pages 8-13 (the actual ballot, numbered 1-6).
That is possibly slightly less nuts than the other one.
I'm still fascinated by the sheer number of things you're expected to vote on at once, not least the number of measures that need some kind of direct public vote rather than being thrashed out through the joys of representative democracy.
I have 2 papers to fill out in the federal election (3-year cycle), one for each house, and 1 paper to fill out in the Territory election (4-year cycle). All of them have candidate names and parties on them, plus basic instructions. That's it.
It can take almost as long to buy a sausage from the primary school sausage sizzle (almost all polling stations are in school halls) as it does to vote.
The only thing that requires a direct vote is a constitutional referendum (although in theory there can also be 'plebiscites' which are totally useless because they're not binding anyway). There's only been one in the 2 decades I've been voting.
[ 09. November 2012, 03:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
Our ballot was both sides of one large page, which included President, House of Representatives, the State legislature, Judges, local races of various sorts (often County Clerk, Sheriff, and/or County Surveyor) and most of the back was taken up with initiatives, though only the summary was printed on the ballot, with the full text and arguments for and against in the Voter's Pamphlet sent to every residence.
We filled them out sitting around the kitchen table, and the hardest part was getting them folded up to fit in the envelope. Unlike absentee ballots in most states, the Oregon ballots have to be received by the end of Election Day, and most are returned before that. Every small town has a drop box at the city hall or other public place where ballots can be deposited without requiring postage. I haven't heard of any long lines in the state, and since the ballots are sent to every registered voter, there is no concern about running short of ballots.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Two more takes on why Obama won (and why Romney lost) from the New York Times--both, I think, right in their own way:
Values, Not Demographics quote:
The president’s victory was a triumph of vision, not of demographics. He won because he articulated a set of values that define an America that the majority of us wish to live in: A nation that makes the investments we need to strengthen and grow the middle class. A nation with a fair tax system, and affordable and excellent education for all its citizens. A nation that believes that we’re most prosperous when we recognize that we are all in it together.
Picket Fence Apocalypse quote:
No, you cannot have your country back. America is moving forward....
On election night, Bill O’Reilly said :
It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.
O’Reilly continued: “The white establishment is now the minority....”
You would think that the world came to an end Tuesday night. And depending on your worldview, it might have. If your idea of America’s power structure is rooted in a 1950s or even a 1920s sensibility, here’s an update: that America is no more.
Republicans are trying to hold back a storm surge of demographic change with a white picket fence. Good luck with that.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The thing that really jumped out at me from that first article was this:
quote:
[O]nly 4 in 10 voters believed another president would have been able to do more than Mr. Obama to get the economy moving in the past four years.
In other words, voters are not sufficiently stupid to say "things are bad, and it's all one person's fault". They're assessing his performance in context.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also I spotted this in the comments for the second article. It's getting a tonne of recommendations. And so it should, because it encapsulates the best possible response to the "oh no, we've lost traditional America" line that the article discusses.
(copying because there's no real way to link to an individual comment, I think)
quote:
I'm sorry - I am a white, 50+, staunch Catholic, church and Bible study going, 30+ years married to my first and only husband, former full time mother to 3 children woman living on acreage: and I still am not sure just why I am supposed to be "afraid". Of what?! A delightful, loving family in the White House? A gracious, funny, warm and intelligent First Lady, with head turning style? Of a president whose integrity,intelligence and passion are genuine and inspiring? I sing Spanish hymns at Mass and feel just as uplifted as if they were in English. I love being around my young adult children and their friends - their energy and ingenuity give me joy and hope. I don't vote Republican (although on paper I suppose I could be their poster child) because I don't want to waste time being angry and afraid. If the new demographic is more colorful and diverse than before, great! I am happy to embrace it. I am confident that like other demographic changes before in our history, I will be welcomed and embraced back.
[ 09. November 2012, 06:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Although we're not clear about the causes of duplicate posts (which three of you experienced yesterday) there are some indications that thread length may be a factor. And this is a very long thread.
What I'm thinking is that once Florida is declared and you've had some reasonable time to reflect on issues such the demography and values, we'll close this thread - say in about a week - and you can transfer other ongoing issues to separate threads as you see fit.
This seems a reasonable thing to do anyway, and if it takes a bit of strain off the old software, so much the better.
I think it might be "a stitch in time" but if you're bothered about the proposal, please open a discussion in the Styx.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
... If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly? I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments. Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected.
Yes, some black voters would have stayed at home if President Obama was white. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the President would have lost the election.
How do you know that those black voters who would not have voted (group A) wouldn't be outweighed by the extra white voters who would have turned out to support a white candidate (group B)?
The polling which found that Hillary Clinton would have done better against Governor Romney than President Obama took both these groups into account. It turns out that there were more people in group B than group A:
"The key thing is that Hillary can reach certain white demographics far better than Obama, and this is only partly offset by Obama's appeal among black voters," said YouGov's president, Peter Kellner." (source, with my emphasis)
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see Texas voted 41% for Obama, so another few years, a million or so more Latinos, and Texas goes blue again! Watch out Mel!
Latinos, in fact new immigrants in general, are probably more likely to vote Republican, being largely in it for the American Dream of self-achievement, and coming to America because they are escaping repressive/corrupt governments. I'd imagine a new immigrant often just wants to be left alone by the government to work hard and make money, and are usually from quite conservative cultures. See the article Croesus linked to on page 69 for a muslim's perspective. It sounds like if only someone in the GOP could rugby tackle the more outspoken racists in the party to the floor and drag them back to the cellar then the democrats would start to seriously struggle to hold the immigrant minorities.
It'll be interesting to see if this happens over the next couple of years as it slowly dawns on the GOP to question the wisdom of virilently insulting and threatening all the new influx of Americans every year.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
To add to Republican woes, here in Texas (no they didn't lose control of the state, BUT), Houston is now purple, Dallas went light blue, and San Antonio went blue.
Austin has been blue forever, and only elects Republicans via gerrymandering (Austin was the reason that the new district map was held up in the courts). The Rio Grande valley is also blue.
If things stay on their current trajectory with population and the Republican party, expect Texas to become a battleground state in 4-12 years, as Latinos look like they will be the majority by 2020.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Latinos, in fact new immigrants in general, are probably more likely to vote Republican, being largely in it for the American Dream of self-achievement, and coming to America because they are escaping repressive/corrupt governments.
There's an interesting parallel in the UK where first-generation Asians might be conservative in philosophy, but vote Labour because it is perceived to be the party of ethnic minority rights.
Socialism is not a natural fit for many middle-class Asians, but the Conservative party hasn't really shown them that it is "on their side".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's an interesting parallel in the UK where first-generation Asians might be conservative in philosophy, but vote Labour because it is perceived to be the party of ethnic minority rights.
Socialism is not a natural fit for many middle-class Asians, but the Conservative party hasn't really shown them that it is "on their side".
I once read an article by Mihir Bose, the BBC's sports editor, who said that many British Asians (including small business owners) also voted Labour because Clement Attlee granted India her independence. That rather surprised me.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'd forgotten about that dynamic. More than just that Atlee signed the act, his approach to Indian independence was very contrary to Churchill's.
I wonder how many remember that though.
[Catches self substantially off course from 2012 US election - another thread maybe? Or maybe not that interesting]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
If, like me, you prefer your news left-leaning and funny there's nothing better than The Daily Show.
The November 7 show is particularly good because there you can see Bill O'Reilly make the statements posted above, about how Democrats "want stuff," and Dick Morris complaining about how there are now even more black people than there used to be.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
