The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

I believe Rommny will win, not because he is better, but because the republican machine is just far more organized. As individuals people may "piss and moan" about Romney or the GOP, but thats it. In the meantime, the Reps are holding "political parties", rallying, and dare I say "converting" others.
They are more motivated, and in a "by choice" system such as the US, the motivated win.

[lordofseas]

I believe Rommny will win, not because he is better, but because the republican machine is just far more organized. As individuals people may "piss and moan" about Romney or the GOP, but thats it. In the meantime, the Reps are holding "political parties", rallying, and dare I say "converting" others.
They are more motivated, and in a "by choice" system such as the US, the motivated win.

Obama still has one advantage: the Electoral College. I'm predicting Obama losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral college, unless he destroys Romney in the next two debates.

[Gatefan1976]

Obama still has one advantage: the Electoral College. I'm predicting Obama losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral college, unless he destroys Romney in the next two debates.

*Does some research*

*speaks in naieve and gentle tones*
Umm, isn't that entire concept (the college) far more suseptable to cronyism than any other construct?

[lordofseas]

*Does some research*

*speaks in naieve and gentle tones*
Umm, isn't that entire concept (the college) far more suseptable to cronyism than any other construct?

Could you rephrase that?

[SoulReaver]

Could you rephrase that?

in a nutshell, I believe he meant: popular vote=fair, electoral college=not fair

[lordofseas]

in a nutshell, I believe he meant: popular vote=fair, electoral college=not fair

I wasn't really speaking to what was fair or not, but how the deck is lined up, so to speak.

[SoulReaver]

I wasn't really speaking to what was fair or not, but how the deck is lined up, so to speak.

I know. but he wasn't really speaking of how the deck is lined up, but of what was fair or not

[jelgate]

in a nutshell, I believe he meant: popular vote=fair, electoral college=not fair

Its only unfair when it causes your side to lose

[aretood2]

in a nutshell, I believe he meant: popular vote=fair, electoral college=not fair

Abraham Lincoln

[Gatefan1976]

I wasn't really speaking to what was fair or not, but how the deck is lined up, so to speak.

Soulreaver has the right of my statement. Your vote means exactly nothing if your "elector" decides to go against popular vote, and that puts the power in the hands of a select few, rather than the majority where it sopposedly should be, and the more "condensed" power is, the suceptible to corruption it becomes.

[lordofseas]

Soulreaver has the right of my statement. Your vote means exactly nothing if your "elector" decides to go against popular vote, and that puts the power in the hands of a select few, rather than the majority where it sopposedly should be, and the more "condensed" power is, the suceptible to corruption it becomes.

No no no. The Electoral College is weird this way. A person can lose the popular vote, yet still legitimately win the election. It's because certain states get more electors than others. If you won 11/50 states absolutely, you could win the White House. California has 55, Texas has 38, Florida has 29, Georgia 16, North Carolina 15, New Jersey 15, Pennsylvania 21, New York has 31, Ohio 20, Michigan has 17, Illinois 21. It is, in my opinion, undemocratic, but absolutely hilarious.

[Gatefan1976]

No no no. The Electoral College is weird this way. A person can lose the popular vote, yet still legitimately win the election. It's because certain states get more electors than others.

Ya, I noticed that.

If you won 11/50 states absolutely, you could win the White House. California has 55, Texas has 38, Florida has 29, Georgia 16, North Carolina 15, New Jersey 15, Pennsylvania 21, New York has 31, Ohio 20, Michigan has 17, Illinois 21. It is, in my opinion, undemocratic, but absolutely hilarious.

It still does not change the fact that if say everyone in Callie voted one way, and the electors all voted the other, that the people are not being represented. In fact it merely re-inforces the notion that the power is held by even *less* people.
I mean, you are right that it is in a way funny, but it also explains (in part) why so many Americans just don't vote. It's "Funny/Sad", ya know?

[lordofseas]

Ya, I noticed that.


It still does not change the fact that if say everyone in Callie voted one way, and the electors all voted the other, that the people are not being represented. In fact it merely re-inforces the notion that the power is held by even *less* people.
I mean, you are right that it is in a way funny, but it also explains (in part) why so many Americans just don't vote. It's "Funny/Sad", ya know?

Generally, the electors are bound by convention, but not law, and many states have punitive measures to ensure that the electors vote the way that they were elected to do.

[Goose]

So called "faithless electors" are not exactly common, but do occur. But, it's important to note, they have never effected the outcome of an election.

[SoulReaver]

Its only unfair when it causes your side to lose

I know, otherwise it's just "legal" ^^

Abraham Lincoln

what about him?