Support NeoGAF

[gcubed]

At the local/state level, high voter turnout is generally good for the challenger (regardless of party). Obviously in districts dominated by a single demographic such as a wealthy suburb or the inner city, the higher the turnout the better for that demographics party.

obviously, but i get the impression that the democrats have to put more effort to get voters out, and their traditional base is also the traditional base that votes less. Republicans will always vote, which is why they generally fare very well in midterm elections.

Those numbers need to be significantly higher.

why? Democrats suck, but they suck less. Its not like anything the democrats have done recently has been so peachy

 

[Jonm1010]

Those numbers need to be significantly higher.

Well 33% is about the number George W. Bush sat at despite his horrific presidency.

The entrenched partisans, the crazy and the ultra religious right will always support the GOP. And you could say that unfortunately thats around 30% of the country in that category IMO.

And the democrats probably have a lot of people that were just plain frustrated at how dominated they were in the debate. If you asked me do you approve of the democrats handeling in congress I would have said no.

 

[besada]

Talked to some other mods who figured it'd be best to merge in the thread "Spending under 2 presidents" into PoliGAF. Sorry for any confusion.

New faces always welcome.

On the California thing. I've calmed down a little. Several games of electronic pinball and an hour of swimming with children.

My frustration is largely based on the wasted opportunity. Instead of doing the rational thing, which is send electoral votes based on the actual percentage of votes received in the state, they've done this thing.

Proportional voting takes care of people's biggest gripe about the electoral college, which is its lack of representation for what the people actually voted. It also fixes the issue of politicians not campaigning in all the states, and lessens the potential for faithless electors.

This thing sort of takes care of the campaigning issue, while it trades away the representation issue, and increases the likelihood of faithless electors. The day that California's largely Democratic electors have to cast their vote for a Republican based on the popular vote is the day you're going to see an explosion of faithless electors. Although, technically, they'd be faithless electors if they didn't cast their votes according to the state vote.

What's more, this is going to hose traditional coverage of elections (not entirely a bad thing, granted.) Imagine a close race. Now imagine that North Dakota is taking a long time to get their popular vote counted. The whole country will have to wait, because so many states will be tied to the popular vote.

For me, this is like watching a friend who has a broken car, and I know it's the alternator, and yet he's replacing the water pump.

I feel like Obama and democrats best friends right now are republicans. Give them the rope and let them hang themselves with the crazy. Ohio, Wisconsin, MI, the debt ceiling debate, the complete aversion to tax increases on the rich, no job bills to point too.

I said this when the Republicans won the House. Give Republicans power and they overreach and destroy themselves. Give Democrats power and they argue amongst themselves and squander their opportunities. It's an old, old story.

 

[eznark]

Wisconsin is a blue state that elected a GOP governor/house members in a wave election; the economy sucked and they threw the bums out

Except that in Wisconsin a GOP governor is the norm for the last few decades, not the exception.

 

[planar1280]

Except that in Wisconsin a GOP governor is the norm for the last few decades, not the exception.

so like California

 

[eznark]

so like California

Without the Gray Davis blip, ya.

 

[Clevinger]

One thing that makes the California popular vote thing slightly better is that it only goes into effect when enough states sign onto it.

The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/09/BAM11KKSPC.DTL

I have to say I agree 100% with beseda (or whatever his name is).

Hmm. I don't. I've long supported this movement, but had forgotten about it over the past few years. I'm all for efforts to undermine the electoral college.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

why don't we just give a percentage of the college members depending on the percentage of votes?

If you gain 50% of the votes in a state, you would get 50% of the electoral college votes.
The winner take all system just seems to undermine people's votes

 

[gcubed]

why don't we just give a percentage of the college members depending on the percentage of votes?

If you gain 50% of the votes in a state, you would get 50% of the electoral college votes.
The winner take all system just seems to undermine people's votes

if you were going to do that, why even have it?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

if you were going to do that, why even have it?

because it's easier then amending the Constitution to replace the Electoral college

 

[GaimeGuy]

How can they be the bush tax cuts after they were extended by Obama. They are now the Obama tax cuts

No, don't try to shift them towards obama. Until late 2009/early 2010, obama was in favor of letting all of the bush tax cuts expire. In 2010, because the recovery was going much slower than the administration and most economists anticipated, obama adjusted his stance to provide a temporary 2 year extension for the bottom 4 out of the 6 tax brackets. While I personally would preferred to have seen none of the cuts extended, I can't say from a practical standpoint that such a course of action would have been better than a temporary partial extension. That said, I don't think a partial extension should have included the 28% bracket, probably not even the 25% bracket (which includes single individuals making $34,001 – $82,400 and married couples filing jointly/qualified widowers making $68,001 – $137,300 ). The bulk of my income falls in this bracket, by the way, as I make almost $70k a year as a single individual living in an apartment with just north of $700 in rent per month. I don't think I needed a tax cut extended on the bulk of my income.

Basically, I was open to the idea of a temporary partial extension on the bottom 2 income brackets, POSSIBLY including the 3rd (25%) bracket in consideration of individuals and couples with significantly more financial obligations than myself and those who live in areas with high costs of living, like those in California or the much of the north-eastern US, as well as single parents.

Obama, on the other hand, was open to a temporary partial extension on the bottom 4 brackets.

The Republicans wanted the cuts extended for all 6 brackets. They are also the ones who wanted the estate tax adjustments (and AMT adjustments, I think) as well as the payroll tax holiday which were included in the bill. All 42 republicans in the senate threatened to fillibuster every single piece of legislation if they didn't get their way. And they got their way.



Calling these the Obama Tax Cuts is disingenuous, since the only part of these 12 years of tax cuts you can pin on Obama suppporting are the tax cuts on the bottom 4 brackets for the 11th and 12th years. All the other cuts are the darlings of Bush and the GOP. So no, they're not the Obama Tax Cuts, or the Bush-Obama tax cuts.

 

[besada]

Hmm. I don't. I've long supported this movement, but had forgotten about it over the past few years. I'm all for efforts to undermine the electoral college.

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.

if you were going to do that, why even have it?

Because getting rid of it requires a Constitutional amendment. But the states are allowed to decide how they choose electors, so you can defang it, increase representation, and avoid an ugly amendment fight.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Calling these the Obama Tax Cuts is disingenuous, since the only part of these 12 years of tax cuts you can pin on Obama suppporting are the tax cuts on the bottom 4 brackets for the 11th and 12th years. All the other cuts are the darlings of Bush and the GOP. So no, they're not the Obama Tax Cuts, or the Bush-Obama tax cuts.

I don't think the question of nomenclature is a terribly important one, but Obama had the option of simply allowing all of the cuts to expire (which would have been the most sensible thing to do.) He didn't. It's on him.

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.

I wish there was some way to double highlight those points. The electoral college is doubly discouraging in a state like NY, for two groups of people. Upstaters, who tend to vote conservative, have their votes largely ignored because the city carries more weight by population. And people like me have precious little reason to vote, because it's fairly clear that the state is going to go blue, so there's no reason to turn out. California's law wouldn't fix any of these problems.

 

[gcubed]

Because getting rid of it requires a Constitutional amendment. But the states are allowed to decide how they choose electors, so you can defang it, increase representation, and avoid an ugly amendment fight.

People need to get over this hurdle, as any real change in the way we govern will require we jump into this. If it wasn't put up on such a high pedestal maybe people would be willing to take on that fight.

 

[sc0la]

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.


Because getting rid of it requires a Constitutional amendment. But the states are allowed to decide how they choose electors, so you can defang it, increase representation, and avoid an ugly amendment fight.

pretty much this, clear and thorough. Thanks for posting

 

[Clevinger]

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.

I want to have your political babies.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't think the question of nomenclature is a terribly important one, but Obama had the option of simply allowing all of the cuts to expire (which would have been the most sensible thing to do.) He didn't. It's on him.

Because the GOP took the unemployed and the poor hostage.

If all of the bush tax cuts were all allowed to expire, do you know who experiences the largest total (not marginal) tax rate increase? People making under 30k. Their income taxes can go up by up to 50% under such a scenario. And that's what would have happened if obama used the veto pen on the bill congress put on his desk. By vetoing the bill, federal unemployment benefits would have expired, as well.

 

[Chichikov]

My frustration is largely based on the wasted opportunity. Instead of doing the rational thing, which is send electoral votes based on the actual percentage of votes received in the state, they've done this thing.

I too support proportional voting, however, it's understandable why a Democratic elected official will oppose it.
Applying it to California alone makes winning the white house significantly more difficult.

 

[besada]

People need to get over this hurdle, as any real change in the way we govern will require we jump into this. If it wasn't put up on such a high pedestal maybe people would be willing to take on that fight.

The last amendment successfully passed was the 27th. It was begun in 1789 and ratified in 1992. It's supposed to be an enormous hurdle, and it is. And it's totally untrue that we can't effect change without passing an amendment. If every state decided to change to proportional voting, which requires no amendment, it would be a radical shift in how we vote for President. Do it at other federal, state, and city levels, and it's a whole new ballgame.

There are very few problems I can think of that require a Constitutional amendment, in fact. We have the tools to fix the system and part of the problem is we refuse to use them because it's not as clean as we'd like it to be. Everyone wants to amend the Constitution, and they smash their political ideas against those rocks over and over.

Want to see a list of failed amendments? Want to guess how much political capital and money were spent seeing them fail? It's a depressing list.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Calling these the Obama Tax Cuts is disingenuous, since the only part of these 12 years of tax cuts you can pin on Obama suppporting are the tax cuts on the bottom 4 brackets for the 11th and 12th years. All the other cuts are the darlings of Bush and the GOP. So no, they're not the Obama Tax Cuts, or the Bush-Obama tax cuts.

The only one being disingenuous is you. Obama didn't just rubber stamp Bush's plan and call it a day. He negotiated a whole slew of new spending into the deal. His administration pushed for it, because they saw it as another way to provide stimulus to the lagging economy. It's his and you have to accept it.

Prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting an additional 21 million households.

— Extend unemployment benefits through the end of next year for workers laid off for more than 26 weeks and fewer than 99 weeks. Obama pushed for this and for continuing tax breaks from the stimulus package for working families and small businesses in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest.

— Reduce Social Security taxes paid by workers for one year, from 6.2 percent of income to 4.2 percent. For example, a worker earning $40,000 a year would receive an $800 benefit.

— Temporarily reinstate the estate tax at a rate of 35 percent for estates worth more than $5 million. Democrats had favored a 45 percent rate, starting at estates worth more than $3.5 million.

— Extend a variety of tax breaks:

for lower- and middle-income families — such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and the college tuition credit.
for businesses, including a research tax credit. In addition, they can write off 100 percent of capital investments next year.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The only one being disingenuous is you. Obama didn't just rubber stamp Bush's plan and call it a day. He negotiated a whole slew of new spending into the deal. His administration pushed for it, because they saw it as another way to provide stimulus to the lagging economy. It's his and you have to accept it.

no, the payroll tax cut and estate tax changes were pushed for by the GOP. I already covered this.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I'd say get rid of the electoral college completely. 2000 election comes to mind

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.

I'm not sure I follow this. Were the proposed approach take effect, the winner of the popular vote would be the winner of the election. We're all well aware of the last time the two were disconnected.

I would prefer the entire pretext of the eloctoral college go away, decided entirely on the basis of popular vote, but I see it as a better way to allocate them.

Proportinoal allocation of the electoral college votes is better than this, but it's a step in the correct direction.

 

[ToxicAdam]

no, the payroll tax cut and estate tax changes were pushed for by the GOP. I already covered this.

The list wasn't meant to show you everything Obama pushed for. It was to show you everything that was negotiated for in the bill. It was a new animal and Obama signed it.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm not sure I follow this. Were the proposed approach take effect, the winner of the popular vote would be the winner of the election. We're all well aware of the last time the two were disconnected.

I would prefer the entire pretext of the eloctoral college go away, decided entirely on the basis of popular vote, but I see it as a better way to allocate them.

Proportinoal allocation of the electoral college votes is better than this, but it's a step in the correct direction.

No, the winner of the national popular vote wins the the state's electoral college votes. I outlined a scenario earlier where if the winner of national popular vote was a Republican, all of California's electoral votes would be awarded to that Republican, even if the majority of the state voted for a Democrat. I think the plan doesn't actually become active until 270 electoral votes worth of states have signed onto it, but even so, it is not addressing the fundamental problems with the electoral college.

Because the GOP took the unemployed and the poor hostage.

If all of the bush tax cuts were all allowed to expire, do you know who experiences the largest total (not marginal) tax rate increase? People making under 30k. Their income taxes can go up by up to 50% under such a scenario. And that's what would have happened if obama used the veto pen on the bill congress put on his desk. By vetoing the bill, federal unemployment benefits would have expired, as well.

That Obama's options were extremely unpalatable doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the actions he took. But like I said, nomenclature is a pretty trivial discussion, and all the more so because the tax cuts will not be allowed to expire.

 

[Evlar]

BOMBA

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SPX:IND

Guess someone didn't like what Bernanke had to say.

 

[Stinkles]

The list wasn't meant to show you everything Obama pushed for. It was to show you everything that was negotiated for in the bill. It was a new animal and Obama signed it.

Presidents have to sign shit to get good legislation passed.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I think the plan doesn't actually become active until 270 electoral votes worth of states have signed onto it, but even so, it is not addressing the fundamental problems with the electoral college.

But it eliminates the biggest problem of the electoral college.

Presidents have to sign shit to get good legislation passed.

I'll be sure to pull this bullshit defense out when people talk about Reagan and Bush Sr. signing tax increases or Nixon creating the EPA. At some point a President has to have accountability for what he signs.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

But it eliminates the biggest problem of the electoral college.

Ends and means. The end is the same, but the means are important. The person who wins the popular vote will win the electoral college, yes, but we're still potentially in a situation where several states could have the wishes of the majority of their states voters overturned.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Ends and means. The end is the same, but the means are important. The person who wins the popular vote will win the electoral college, yes, but we're still potentially in a situation where several states could have the wishes of the majority of their states voters overturned.

Exactly. People's votes will essentially be nullified. It's not a good solution at all.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Ends and means. The end is the same, but the means are important. The person who wins the popular vote will win the electoral college, yes, but we're still potentially in a situation where several states could have the wishes of the majority of their states voters overturned.

Which would be a grave problem if we were electing a Governor. But we are electing an official to be the President of the United States.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The Fed is fucking useless. Bernake is fucking useless.

 

[Mike M]

I think I fall in favor of nullifying the EC's ability to circumvent the popular vote over concerns that a single state's EV's might go contrary to how the state voted when the rest of the country outvoted them. The margin of victory in the EC doesn't make the victor more or less President.

 

[besada]

I think I fall in favor of nullifying the EC's ability to circumvent the popular vote over concerns that a single state's EV's might go contrary to how the state voted when the rest of the country outvoted them. The margin of victory in the EC doesn't make the victor more or less President.

Proportional electoral voting fixes that problem without denying the people representation.

 

[turnbuckle]

I'm all for efforts to engage in actual proportional voting, and this isn't that. Can you tell me a way in which this would be better than sending proportional electors, which deals with the real problem of the electoral college? Because this exacerbates the issue of non-representation. It's no more representational than what we have now. It essentially casts away the votes of those who voted against the national winner.

Doing proportional electoral voting forces politicians to scramble for every elector, rather than guaranteeing big blocks of them. It increases the chances for third party candidates, who continue to have no chance under this scheme, and, most importantly, it accurately reflects who we actually voted for. In the last Presidential election, Texas would have sent 18 electoral votes for McCain, and 15 for Obama, accurately reflecting who the state voted for. Under this scheme, they would have sent 34 electoral votes for Obama, completely ignoring who the majority of the state voted for.

How is that a good thing? I don't like the way the electoral college is structured any more than you do, but this drives further away from actual representation of the will of the people, which is the wrong direction.


Because getting rid of it requires a Constitutional amendment. But the states are allowed to decide how they choose electors, so you can defang it, increase representation, and avoid an ugly amendment fight.

Agree with everything you said.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Interesting study in Mass.:

Despite the significant reduction in uninsurance levels in Massachusetts that occurred with healthcare reform, the demand for care at safety-net facilities continues to rise," the authors wrote. "Most safety-net patients do not view these facilities as providers of last resort; rather, they prefer the types of care that are offered there."

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PracticeManagement/27966

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Proportional electoral voting fixes that problem without denying the people representation.

It's the simplest, cleanest fix. This one is a slam-dunk, guys, come on.

 

[eznark]

BOMBA

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SPX:IND

Guess someone didn't like what Bernanke had to say.

Heh, gold will be 2000 before the end of the week!

He may as well have come right out and said "we're firing up the ol' presses!"

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why is it an either/or proposition? Why can't you do one (to prevent 2000 from happening again) while pushing for the other?

 

[Mike M]

Proportional voting would be better, but I can accept a solution that marginalizes the EC in subservience to the national popular vote and still sleep at night.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Why is it an either/or proposition? Why can't you do one (to prevent 2000 from happening again) while pushing for the other?

It's more like, one fixes the problem, but one only addresses the symptoms. And I prefer the former.

 

[Byakuya769]

Doesn't proportional voting in one state (California for example), lead to situations where "winner takes all" has its importance amplified in every state that is a non-proportional voting state?

 

[empty vessel]

Which would be a grave problem if we were electing a Governor. But we are electing an official to be the President of the United States.

Correct. It basically nationalizes the presidential election by eradicating state lines for the vote. It isn't really accurate to say that it nullifies votes, because what it does is embed a deeper principle--itself democratically selected--into the system. Brown's signing of the bill enacts the democratic will of Californians that the president be decided by national popular vote without regard to the electoral college. The enactment of that principle may work to the disadvantage of California on discrete occasions, but that is a measure of how deeply the principle is held by people in the state (as represented by their state government). So even if the majority of Californians vote for a Democrat, but California's electoral votes go to a Republican, that does not violate the democratic will of Californians, because part of that will is a deeper principle about how presidents should be elected.

Of course, besada's idea is better. Much better. But this idea does express a value about how presidents ought to be selected, i.e., strictly popularly and strictly nationally.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Heh, gold will be 2000 before the end of the week!

He may as well have come right out and said "we're firing up the ol' presses!"

Glenn Beck is laughing at all of you right now.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Glenn Beck is laughing at all of you right now.

He was smarter than us all along

 

[planar1280]

BOMBA

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SPX:IND

Guess someone didn't like what Bernanke had to say.

BOOM:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI,INDEXSP:.INX,INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC

back up

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Proportional electoral voting fixes that problem without denying the people representation.

I'm surprised more States haven't tried this. I know Colorado put it up for a vote a while ago but it was rejected. It's probably the best solution outside of an amendment (which will never pass). It would also be interesting to see how this would change political strategies.
But it still won't guarantee that the popular vote winner will win the election.

 

[empty vessel]

He was smarter than us all along

I strongly suspect he will hang on to it too long.

 

[eznark]

Screaming back. God damn the Dow is hilarious this past hour.