livendive 8 #26 November 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? were you able to write that with a straight face? California -55 Texas-38 Florida -29 New York-29 You brought up Florida, not me. How much time have Romney and Obama spent courting California, Texas, or New York? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 November 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? were you able to write that with a straight face? California -55 Texas-38 Florida -29 New York-29 You brought up Florida, not me. How much time have Romney and Obama spent courting California, Texas, or New York? Blues, Dave I cut and pasted the top four from Lawrocket's. Go back, I've fleshed out (edited) my comment to your meaning ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 November 2, 2012 QuoteHow much time have Romney and Obama spent courting California, Texas, or New York? Very little. No need for either candidate to pay attention to Cali - it's already locked up for Obama. Why put effort and money into a game that was won? The spend money on the swing states. Look at where the candidates are. Those are the states that can give the biggest bang for the buck. In a sense, that's fine. They are playing by the rules. Like the season analogy, when you've got home field through the playoffs locked up in week 14, you can rest your starters the next three games. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #29 November 2, 2012 I thought about a long post with math and stuff, then realized we had this conversation in 2008 and 2004, and maybe even in 2001. I think we're just destined to disagree. There are so many sub-elements on which we disagree that the odds of either of us winning the overall argument are infinitesimally small. Still, I hope you have as wonderful an afternoon as a wrong person possibly can. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #30 November 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? were you able to write that with a straight face? California -55 With all 55 votes going to the Democrats. A Republican vote here doesn't matter and it'd take a couple million Democrats staying home to change the result. Candidates fly through to pickup campaign contributions to spend elsewhere, although they don't need to campaign here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 November 2, 2012 It's not so much a disagreement, or right vs wrong, it's just opinions. We simply work from different starting points. It is pretty simple - you consider the feds to be king and I consider the states to be king - I respect your well meaning and horribly erroneous position as one well thought out and well intentioned with it's own merits that I understand, I just don't agree everything else pretty much falls from that and our discussions are predictable as can be on the subject what I really like, is that you stay on message despite which party is likely to benefit each time have a great weekend (I'm not sure I was here in '01) in short - I ignore your assumption that for your philosophy to work, all 50 states have to change the voting process to popular vote You ignore my assumption that under the current rules, each state can proportion their electoral votes and have no right to change what other states do then we both talk past each other based on our preferred ignorance . It's the SC way.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #32 November 2, 2012 I was looking at the whole whose-vote-counts-more thing, and found this interesting and illustrative graphic. Gives a nice picture of population vs. number of voters vs. Electoral College ballots. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 November 2, 2012 It's a cool thing. Explainable that there is a floor of three electoral votes. More senator per person. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #34 November 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteHow much time have Romney and Obama spent courting California, Texas, or New York? Very little. No need for either candidate to pay attention to Cali - it's already locked up for Obama. Why put effort and money into a game that was won? The spend money on the swing states. Look at where the candidates are. Those are the states that can give the biggest bang for the buck. In a sense, that's fine. They are playing by the rules. Like the season analogy, when you've got home field through the playoffs locked up in week 14, you can rest your starters the next three games. Does attention on the campaign trail equate to attention governing? It is easy to forget sometimes that the point of the exercise is actually governance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #35 November 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? were you able to write that with a straight face? California -55 Texas-38 New York-29 How many candidate visits to those three combined, compared to Ohio, Virginia, Colorado? Seem to me that the folks being ignored are the residents of the big states,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 November 2, 2012 QuoteIt is easy to forget sometimes that the point of the exercise is actually governance. And Gov. Christie is catching hell from plenty on the right for remembering that. Meanwhile, the right is giving Obama hell for ignoring that. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 November 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt is easy to forget sometimes that the point of the exercise is actually governance. And Gov. Christie is catching hell from plenty on the right for remembering that. Meanwhile, the right is giving Obama hell for ignoring that. lol - So they hate him when he does govern (ACA), and they hate him for not governing when they obstruct every single thing he tries. Seems legit. For that matter, Gov Christie does a hell of a lot of "not governing" too. He recently toured Washington State in support of GOP candidates here. That doesn't help his constituents one bit, it was just a chance to play rock star on the other side of the country. Oddly enough, my ballot this election was the first one I've ever submitted that didn't have several Republican votes on it. The reasons are two, Boehner and McConnell. They've proven to me that the GOP no longer gives a shit about this country, they just want power. Obama offered an awful lot of compromise that was flatly rejected, thus in every election where I didn't like either candidate, I just wrote myself in, or if I didn't care, I voted (D). I will not vote for another Republican until the party demonstrates an interest in the greater good for America. I understand that reasonable minds can differ on what is the greater good, but the last couple of years have been well beyond that. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,049 #38 November 3, 2012 Hi Dave, Quote . . . I voted (D). . . . On the news this evening, an election worker in Clackamas County, Oregon has been charged with voter fraud. It seems that when a ballot came with no candidate checked, she would take the ballot and mark it for the Republican candidate. Ya gotta win some how. JerryBaumchen PS) IMO McConnell is just about the worst of the bunch. He decries all of the pork that the Demos get but makes sure his tobacco growers get more than their share. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #39 November 3, 2012 Quote Hi Dave, Quote . . . I voted (D). . . . On the news this evening, an election worker in Clackamas County, Oregon has been charged with voter fraud. It seems that when a ballot came with no candidate checked, she would take the ballot and mark it for the Republican candidate. Ya gotta win some how. JerryBaumchen PS) IMO McConnell is just about the worst of the bunch. He decries all of the pork that the Demos get but makes sure his tobacco growers get more than their share. And Speaker Boehner decries the president for the deficit, yet it's the HOUSE that approves the budget.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 November 3, 2012 QuoteObama offered an awful lot of compromise that was flatly rejected On what issues? That's the thing, Dave. On what issues? Obama offered compromise on what? Compromise on raising taxes? Compromise on the ACA? Compromise on funding for abortion? Compromise on gun control? IN other words, he hit with ideologically divided issues where compromise isn't going to happen because it goes to the core of the ideological divide. I know there are some things that cannot be compromised. If Tiger Woods, for example, had offered to Elin, "I'll only have sex with one other woman per month. Okay. One every 6 weeks. 2 months? 3 months? Elin - you are the party of 'No!' Look how far I've bent on this!" Show me issues where he has "compromised" something that isn't ideologically divided. And how much compromise is it? Note the President's persistent statement, "We're asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more." No. He's not asking. He won't be asking. He'll be TELLING the rich to pay a lot more. The whole "compromise" thing is ridiculous to me. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #41 November 3, 2012 The ideological divide is set to where compromise has to happen within someone's territory. If it all happens within the area that the Democrats and liberals think is their ideological territory, then it's no more a compromise than if it all happens within an area that the Republicans and conservatives think is their territory. And with each side grabbing up ideological territory willy-nilly, and naming it so that it practically becomes trademarked, that leaves less and less ideological territory that can be "compromised" on without someone being able to trumpet that they "won."Of course, none of the rest of us win, do we. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #42 November 3, 2012 QuoteThe thing is that social and cultural melding is going on all the time, especially with the advent of reasonable mass communications, the internet, and global brands. That's going to blur other boundaries more and more. Wendy P. Exactly - TV and internet coverage of presidential candidates knows no bounds, which is why anything other than "one person, one vote", like every other elected office, is just plain silly and arcane. It's a vestigial tail - off with it already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 November 3, 2012 QuoteThe ideological divide is set to where compromise has to happen within someone's territory I disagree. There are some things where there is philosophical disagreement. Look at the death penalty. Is there really compromise that can be reached by a person who is philosophically opposed to it? How about abortion? Can a compromise be reached on gay marriage? There are legitimate philosophical controversies. I think that denying those differences decreases the respect for differing opinions. I actually think that's part of the PROBLEM. Each side disputes the underlying root of the believes and finds some moral supremacy. I cannot see how compromise can be reached in many things. There is either a death penalty or there is not. And if, say, a GOP candidate says, "I want death penalty to include abortion doctors, nurses, child molesters, rapists and homeless" and later comes off of the position to say, "I gave up on the homeless, rapists and child molesters and they still said 'NO!'" then would we really be seeing that person's position as one of trying to compromise? Some actually WOULD see that acs compromise. Others would say that everything proposed was unacceptable and that they cannot compromise on those demands. I say it's reasonable, Wendy, to suggest that "compromise" is, at times, impossible. And in many ways, I am glad that it is impossible. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #44 November 3, 2012 I agree that there are things that can't, and shouldn't, be compromised on. However, your list: QuoteObama offered compromise on what? Compromise on raising taxes? Compromise on the ACA? Compromise on funding for abortion? Compromise on gun control? IN other words, he hit with ideologically divided issues where compromise isn't going to happen because it goes to the core of the ideological divide.is full of things that do potentially have room in them. There is area somewhere in between "no guns anywhere ever" and "I can mine the areas beneath the windows in my house to prevent burglars." People may disagree on where it divides, but there is an area. Likewise, on abortion -- there is obviously an area. There are people who are against birth control of any kind, people who are against post-coital birth control (e.g. IUD, morning-after pill), all the way up to people who think that a 8.5-month-old fetus should be abortable. Again, there is room in there. ACA was based on Romney's plan. Setting up the whole friggin' thing as evil, and then picking out pieces as it becomes clear that some of htem are popular, makes it entirely clear that there is room there, and that it was set up as a somewhat artificial ideological divide. Note: it was a compromise in the beginning. The all-the-way idea would be nationalized health care. It's not even close to that. Raising taxes? Well, cuts were proposed by the left. I think that more cuts were needed, and I also think that there should be some tax rises. Such is life. But, again, this is where discussion comes in; it's how you determine where the actual room is in between positions. When the media are defining "positions" for us, and telling us where the lines end, then there isn't discourse, is there. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #45 November 3, 2012 A proper mathematical analysis of the electoral college (and similar block voting systems) shows that it doesn't achieve what most of its proponents think it achieves. www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #46 November 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe ideological divide is set to where compromise has to happen within someone's territory I disagree. There are some things where there is philosophical disagreement. I think what she was saying is that there's no demilitarized zone nor unexplored territory. The ideological viewpoints of the two parties have become collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Oh, and "raising taxes" is not the kind of binary ideological issue you are describing with your other examples. Norquist can draft all the pledges he wants but the taxes are already there: ideology over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #47 December 5, 2012 QuoteSo? Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness? Absolutely Not. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4409083#4409083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
