|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
I read Michael Reagan is considering taking Feinstein on:
quote:
Michael Reagan, son of the former president, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he's looking at challenging California Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2012.
A poll out this week showed Feinstein with the highest negatives in her nearly 20 years in the Senate.
snip
This week it was learned that Feinstein's campaign accounts were "wiped out" in the accounting scandal that linked her to longtime treasurer Kinde Durkee. The latest FEC filings show Feinstein with more than five million dollars in the bank but it's not clear how much of that money actually exists or when the campaign might be able to access its remaining funds.
The Spirit of Ronald lives!
Here's hoping for an interesting election. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 01. December 2012, 10:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... Dunhill Barry ...
What does this mean? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
The stump speeches would at least have significant comedic and entertainment value.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... Dunhill Barry ...
What does this mean? OliviaG
Just a jab at Barry for being a smoker, in spite of all we hear about how he is the smartest man in every room.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
The lefties around here complain that she is too right wing.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
The Spirit of Ronald lives!
The actor spirit, perhaps. Michael resembles the politics of the Modern Day Right-Wing mouthpieces he tries to emulate much more than the politics of his late father.
I sincerely hope that the 2012 election is not full of children of privilege again. It is becoming quite tiresome. Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
The lefties around here complain that she is too right wing.
Franken-Boxer?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
How many non-millionaires in their right mind would want to be a Republican? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it tremendously sad that we have a 2012 election thread before we've hit 2012?
Given that said election doesn't happen until NOVEMBER 2012, for crying out loud. To have almost a third of the presidential term taken up by election discussion (note: I don't mean just here on the Ship) just illustrates everything wrong with a system where being elected is effectively bigger business than the actual process of doing things once elected.
--------------------
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
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Franken-Boxer? [/QB]
That would probably make them happier.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
Indeed. The Dims would do well to do the same.
I had supper last night with a good friend who has never been political in his life. Then a few years ago he spent an extended amount of time in France and now has a bunch of French UN working lefty friends. He actually said that there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness? I just changed the subject to the quality of his chicken.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He actually said that there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
"From your lips to God's ear" seems appropriate...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
Obama can definitely lose and, in a way, it would be better for progressives if he did. At least then the Dems would be back in opposition and actually fight the Republicans instead of caving in all the time.
As for government spending, the US could afford two or three lovely new wars if social security was cut.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Madness? New Yorker, my friend, all reputable economists point out the need for spending by the government at this time. I'll respect the views of a Nobel Prize winning economist or other real academically-rigourous economist over those of a mad Tea Partier any day.
And how can anyone who professes Christianity think it's moral madness to place the protection of corporate executives' multi-million dollar bonuses above the right to life of people who are dying in the U.S. due to inability to afford health care. (And yes, it's been documented, but i'm late to work; I'll post link citations later if you missed the news, and if other Shipmates don't do so first.)
WJJD?, indeed.
However, I do think your French lefty friends are mistaken if they think that Obama is a shoo-in for reelection.
[ 19. September 2011, 13:50: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I suppose the political division in this nation really is that profound.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Our divisions are profound indeed.
Federalism is what we need.
Shame none of the political candidates truly want that.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He actually said that there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
"From your lips to God's ear" seems appropriate...
--Tom Clune
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Yes, the division in the social fabric of the US is deeply profound. The division is socio-economic. I fail to see where federalism is the answer. It's bad enough here in Georgia with the US gov't. If the social safety net depended on the state of Georgia alone, God help us who reside here.
[ 19. September 2011, 17:58: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It is party socio-economic but not entirely. Divisions are more cultural not economic. Democrats would win ever election if the divisions were simply economic. Socialism never caught on in the United States because shared regional and local cultures unite and divide us more than money. I suppose you can make the argument that every less than wealthy person who votes Republic is ignorant. As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
And if (a majority of) the people of Arkansas want to adopt a system of racial apartheid, they wouldn't be subject to "unwarranted" federal intervention. There's a fairly long and unpleasant history behind the kind of arguments BA is advancing. I guess "state's rights" became too well known as a euphemism so the new watchword is "federalism".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
The divisions are also idealogical. What should be the role of the federal government? How big should it be? How much money should it be allowed to tax?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it tremendously sad that we have a 2012 election thread before we've hit 2012?
Given that said election doesn't happen until NOVEMBER 2012, for crying out loud. To have almost a third of the presidential term taken up by election discussion (note: I don't mean just here on the Ship) just illustrates everything wrong with a system where being elected is effectively bigger business than the actual process of doing things once elected.
It isn't just you. I could simply ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
And if Obama's approval ratings are low, Congress better not point the finger. I think the last time I heard, his were at 37%, Congress's not quite 1/3rd of that. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I guess we get what we deserve. "Where fools abound, knaves will flourish..."
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
How many non-millionaires in their right mind would want to be a Republican?
Since when have Presidential candidates been limited to those in their right mind? Have you watched the Republican primary debates?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
And if (a majority of) the people of Arkansas want to adopt a system of racial apartheid, they wouldn't be subject to "unwarranted" federal intervention. There's a fairly long and unpleasant history behind the kind of arguments BA is advancing. I guess "state's rights" became too well known as a euphemism so the new watchword is "federalism".
In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
I guess my question for Croesos, or anyone else who wants to take this up, is, does that good law that came out of an extremely bad circumstance justify throwing out the entire idea of federalism? Or are there areas which, in your view, could be handled by the states, even if the legislature of those states is dominated by the party you don’t vote for?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The approval numbers for Obama are based on respondents opinion of one person. Approval numbers for Congress are based on respondents opinion of 535. A person could be perfectly happy with their senators and representative and still have a overall negative opinion of Congress. A negative opinion of Obama's job performance is a negative opinion of Obama's job performance. However, a negative opinion of Obama's job performance does not equal a positive view of Republicans. Some respondents likely disapprove of Obama because they perceive him as not being tough enough in dealing with the Republicans. So, unless these people are also very spiteful, it is unlikely they will express their displeasure by voting Republican.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If corporations are officially people in the USA, do they get to vote?
(While I am at it, I should probably ask when Texas will start executing them.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
If corporations are officially people in the USA, do they get to vote?
you act as if they don't already!
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
(While I am at it, I should probably ask when Texas will start executing them.)
oooh... now you've got me rethinking my position on the death penalty...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
This seems to implicitly accept the idea that the federal government should not be legitimately interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. I reject the idea that the Civil Rights Act was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress, rather than a perfectly legitimate and logical consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess my question for Croesos, or anyone else who wants to take this up, is, does that good law that came out of an extremely bad circumstance justify throwing out the entire idea of federalism? Or are there areas which, in your view, could be handled by the states, even if the legislature of those states is dominated by the party you don’t vote for?
The big problem with BA's definition of "federalism" is that it denies the legitimacy of the federal goverment on any level. That's a pretty counter-intuitive use of the term, at least in an American context.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
This seems to implicitly accept the idea that the federal government should not be legitimately interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. I reject the idea that the Civil Rights Act was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress, rather than a perfectly legitimate and logical consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress didn’t insert a reference to interstate commerce in the civil rights act for fun. Nor did the Supreme Court decide that it was constitutional for reasons related to the 14th amendment; those cases are commerce clause cases. So that may be your interpretation, but it isn’t based on the actual history of the civil rights act.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess my question for Croesos, or anyone else who wants to take this up, is, does that good law that came out of an extremely bad circumstance justify throwing out the entire idea of federalism? Or are there areas which, in your view, could be handled by the states, even if the legislature of those states is dominated by the party you don’t vote for?
The big problem with BA's definition of "federalism" is that it denies the legitimacy of the federal goverment on any level. That's a pretty counter-intuitive use of the term, at least in an American context.
Does it, BA, or do you think that there are areas that are best left to the Feds?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yes, I believe some areas are best left to the feds.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
What if Buckhead doesn't have the tax base to be able to support a safety net? Does the rest of the country have any obligation to the citizens of Buckhead?
In Canada, the federal government has an equalization process for funding certain programs administered by the provinces (primarily health and education). This is recognition of the fact that there are economic disparities between the provinces. Yes, they take money from wealthier provinces and give it to poorer provinces. <shock, horror> Some socialist garbage about all Canadians being equal or suchlike ...
Furthermore, the more divergent the states become in areas such as employment law, professional certifications, and many others I can't think of right now, the more barriers there are to labour mobility, which, I believe, is thought to be a good thing. Differences in environmental standards may allow more pollution in some states, but there's no way to keep that pollution from affecting neighbouring states. And so on. The federal government should be doing more than just defense and foreign policy.
It seems everyone wants federalism, except that some people want it to allow diversity and others want it to provide consistency. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Buckhead is an extremely wealthy part of Atlanta. My point was that if Georgians wanted a bigger safety net the government could raise taxes on wealthy people living in Georgia. Same principle would apply in any state.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania wants to begin awarding electoral college points by congressional district, with the two votes corresponding to senate seats to follow the majority of district decisions, instead of the usual "winner-take-all." Apparently this isn't unconstitutional. Two small States already do it; although one has to wonder, if a State has the power to choose another way than the usual, why they don't just go with the proportion of popular vote. It's whatever the Republicans figure will be best for themselves, of course.
Pennsylvania is known as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between." Aside from these two cities and their environs, every congressional district went for McCain in 2008.
Actually, some Republican congressmen aren't too keen on this idea. The Democrats would focus more attention than ever on the contested districts. The change could backfire on them. Watching them duke this proposal out will be interesting.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
If corporations are officially people in the USA, do they get to vote?
(While I am at it, I should probably ask when Texas will start executing them.)
Why would they bother? Voting is for little people who can't afford to buy power.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania wants to begin awarding electoral college points by congressional district, with the two votes corresponding to senate seats to follow the majority of district decisions, instead of the usual "winner-take-all." Apparently this isn't unconstitutional. Two small States already do it; although one has to wonder, if a State has the power to choose another way than the usual, why they don't just go with the proportion of popular vote. It's whatever the Republicans figure will be best for themselves, of course.
Pennsylvania is known as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between." Aside from these two cities and their environs, every congressional district went for McCain in 2008.
Actually, some Republican congressmen aren't too keen on this idea. The Democrats would focus more attention than ever on the contested districts. The change could backfire on them. Watching them duke this proposal out will be interesting.
I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Voting is for little people who can't afford to buy power.
Or even more cynically - voting is to give little people the idea that they live in a democracy and have some influence. It's to stop them rising up and causing trouble.
[ 20. September 2011, 09:32: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I really am liking Speaker Boehner more and more.
Obama v Obama
[ 20. September 2011, 13:51: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
In most of those quotes, Obama was talking about raising taxes on the middle class. He wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich but continue for the middle class. The Republicans said no. The one from 2009 might be about taxes in general. When the Republicans start running political ads. using the video of Obama making that statement, they will imply he meant taxes in general rather he did or he didn't. Republican strategists only need a few images or negative quotes to win an election. Clinton was too slick. First time around, Obama didn't have much of a record and overcame the attacks with soaring rhetoric. This time around Obama has a record and people are tired of campaign speeches.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
It's a second-best idea to just doing away with the electoral college altogether (though it does have the advantage of not needing a Constitutional amendment to implement). That said, it's only a good idea if widely implemented. If done on a piecemeal basis to split the electoral votes of certain states while leaving others as winner-take-all it's just the kind of 'fair in principle but deeply unfair in practice' sort of voting reform favored by elites distrustful of democratic elections.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania wants to begin awarding electoral college points by congressional district, with the two votes corresponding to senate seats to follow the majority of district decisions, instead of the usual "winner-take-all." Apparently this isn't unconstitutional. Two small States already do it; although one has to wonder, if a State has the power to choose another way than the usual, why they don't just go with the proportion of popular vote. It's whatever the Republicans figure will be best for themselves, of course.
Pennsylvania is known as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between." Aside from these two cities and their environs, every congressional district went for McCain in 2008.
Actually, some Republican congressmen aren't too keen on this idea. The Democrats would focus more attention than ever on the contested districts. The change could backfire on them. Watching them duke this proposal out will be interesting.
That is a rather old wheeze, which some Democrats tried here in Colorado back in 2004, when this state tended to be reliably red. Now they would probably regret the move had it passed, as the state has become more competitive, and their candidate has a real shot at pulling in all the votes. It seems to me that any “fix” which is based on reversing one recent undesirable result is set to backfire- let’s call that the Lazy Jack principle.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
It's a second-best idea to just doing away with the electoral college altogether (though it does have the advantage of not needing a Constitutional amendment to implement). That said, it's only a good idea if widely implemented. If done on a piecemeal basis to split the electoral votes of certain states while leaving others as winner-take-all it's just the kind of 'fair in principle but deeply unfair in practice' sort of voting reform favored by elites distrustful of democratic elections.
No, it's a genuinely terrible idea. The states have been gerrymandering congressional districts for two centuries -- at least back as far as our own Massachusetts Governor Gerry, for whom the term was coined.
This is just another attempt to disenfranchise as many people as possible. That is currently a Republican specialty, but has been a favored tool of each party so frequently that it is hard for either party to get too self-righteous about it.
But, however you slice it, it is being proposed only because it favors party machine over the popular vote.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It is a bad idea if you assume electing the president simply by popular vote is the best way to go. I don't and for many of the same reasons the Framers decided not to do it in the first place. If 13 colonies up and down the Atlantic seaboard couldn't agree to elect a president purely by popular vote, it seems unlikely that 50 states spanning the length of a continent will agree to do it. Corbett's scenario disenfranchises far fewer people than the status quo.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It is a bad idea if you assume electing the president simply by popular vote is the best way to go. I don't and for many of the same reasons the Framers decided not to do it in the first place.
A distrust of the people and a desire to inflate the influence of slave states? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If 13 colonies up and down the Atlantic seaboard couldn't agree to elect a president purely by popular vote, it seems unlikely that 50 states spanning the length of a continent will agree to do it. Corbett's scenario disenfranchises far fewer people than the status quo.
It should also be noted that, according to the 2000 census, there are twenty-nine states whose population is greater than the number of free citizens in the whole U.S. according to the 1790 census. (Thirty-eight, if you factor in the disenfranchisement of women in the early republic.) Despite this, states very rarely have any difficulty electing their chief executive by straight-up popular vote and none have resorted to anything as Byzantine as the electoral college on a state level. The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Corbett's scenario disenfranchises far fewer people than the status quo.
This is simply false, unless you adopt the bizarre notion that getting electoral votes from other districts somehow "enfranchises" those who voted for the candidate that lost in their own.
The motivation for adopting this scheme is clearly to capitalize on the disenfranchising that the states have institutionalized in their redistricting. It is quite easy to imagine a candidate literally winning the popular vote by a landslide and losing the electoral vote, also by a landslide, in this scenario.
We are past the days of ward machine politics -- let's really throw the bums out by eliminating the electoral college and prosecuting those state and local officials who disenfranchise voters through refusing to provide adequate voting machines to districts that trend toward the opposition party, that challenge voter registrations only in those districts that tend to vote for the opposition party, etc.
This country has a foul history of anti-democratic policies on the part of the political parties. Let's just put it to an end. We won't get better politicians by doing that, but we will at least have less legitimacy in our complaints about the grifters that we elect.
--Tom Clune
[ 20. September 2011, 18:24: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Re choosing electors via by district vs. bywinner-take all...
ISTM the problem is the plan's selectiveness. If states are going to go to electors based on who wins in districts within a specific states, then all states should have to. It shouldn't be some states doing a percentage and others doing winner-take-all.
Why? Because say it's a blue state, and the voters in majority-red districts within the state want to have that reflected in the outcome. Fair enough, but only if it works both ways, i.e., that in red states, majority-blue districts get the same treatment. Otherwise it just increases the unfairness.
For example Georgia, here in Dixie, is a very reliable red state. The conservatives will win statewide every time, and the Republican candidate for President is guaranteed to win all the electors.
However, if electoral votes were apportioned by district, while the Republicans would still win the most electors, at least 2, and maybe 3 congressional districts (in the central part of the Atlanta metropolitan area) would just as surely go blue, since the city and near-suburbs of Atlanta are politically almost the opposite of therest of GA.
In this case the democrats would be helped. So the fair thing is, whatever is decided, it should be applied accross the board.
[ 20. September 2011, 18:41: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Re choosing electors via by district vs. bywinner-take all...
ISTM the problem is the plan's selectiveness. If states are going to go to electors based on who wins in districts within a specific states, then all states should have to. It shouldn't be some states doing a percentage and others doing winner-take-all.
But this simply ignores the biggest unfairness in the electoral college system in the first place -- someone in a small state has a much bigger vote than someone in a large state. The difference between how much one person's vote counts in Nevada is something like 3 times as much as someone in California. It's just an anachronistic perversion that was part of accommodating slave states, and should be done away with entirely.
Let each person's vote count the same, no matter where they are from. Anything less is intrinsically unfair, and spending time and energy skewing the unfairness in one direction or another is either silly or corrupt.
--Tom Clune
[ 20. September 2011, 19:20: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by tclune:
This is simply false, unless you adopt the bizarre notion that getting electoral votes from other districts somehow "enfranchises" those who voted for the candidate that lost in their own.
The motivation for adopting this scheme is clearly to capitalize on the disenfranchising that the states have institutionalized in their redistricting. It is quite easy to imagine a candidate literally winning the popular vote by a landslide and losing the electoral vote, also by a landslide, in this scenario.
Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts. The makeup of the state legislature reflects the leanings of the state as a whole. The presidential candidate will likely get a significant number of votes in a state where his or her party controls the state legislature.
Political parties can use their control of the legislature to limit the number of seats held by the opposition party. However, the minority almost always gets some congressional districts. Those congressional districts can then award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate of the minority party. They don't have that opportunity in a winner take all system like the status quo.
As for a candidate winning the popular vote by a landslide but not getting a majority of the electoral votes, it is a remote possibility. I can also imagine freak scenarios that might happen if the US elected a president strictly by popular vote. Voter turnout is usually quite low and evenly split among Democrats and Republicans. Say a popular politician in a large state ran for president as a third party candidate and focused exclusively on winning and turning out the vote in his own state and the surrounding ones. The politician could theoretically become president with next to no political support outside their own state and the surrounding areas.
quote:
originally posted by malik3000:
In this case the democrats would be helped. So the fair thing is, whatever is decided, it should be applied accross the board.
The constitution allows the state legislatures to decide how a states electors are chosen. Though I agree, it would be better if all the states adopted the same method. Og is correct that the current plan by Pennsylvania Republicans is both partisan and shortsighted.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
