• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Byakuya769 said:
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?
Click to expand...


That is why all states should be proportional. :(
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
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.
Click to expand...
So what? The Republican won the popular vote. They should win the election.

The way the thing is set up, if someone wins the popular vote, all the states that are part of the deal allocate their electoral votes to that person, making sure they also win the election. It's not perfect - proportional allocation would be the framework I would prefer, should the electoral college be preserved - but it's better than current.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
quadriplegicjon said:
That is why all states should be proportional. :(
Click to expand...
It's probably also why it won't happen short of an amendment. The more states that go proportional, the more important the holdouts become.

If this group that CA has signed on with is ever successful in getting 270 votes on board, I'd expect the dam to burst and all states hop on board since the EC would be rendered moot.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
That is why all states should be proportional. :(
Click to expand...

I definitely agree. But I thought we were discussing what would be a better way for moving towards the Presidential election being determined by the popular vote on a state by state basis. Though it would (will?) look stupid when a President wins the popular vote by about 2%, and then is awarded 80% of the college's votes. Then again, showing the absurdity of the college may be the point.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
but the amount of times the president has won despite not having the popular vote can be counted on one hand.

So you have to wonder if adopting CA method is a little pointless (unlike a proportion method which could shake up elections)
 
E

eznark

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
So what? The Republican won the popular vote. They should win the election.

The way the thing is set up, if someone wins the popular vote, all the states that are part of the deal allocate their electoral votes to that person, making sure they also win the election. It's not perfect - proportional allocation would be the framework I would prefer, should the electoral college be preserved - but it's better than current.
Click to expand...

Unless they decide not to, which the California delegates would surely do (at least some of them) should a Republican win the popular vote but CA goes to the Dem. There is nothing binding in the legislation that forces the electoral voters hand.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
eznark said:
Unless they decide not to, which the California delegates would surely do (at least some of them) should a Republican win the popular vote but CA goes to the Dem. There is nothing binding in the legislation that forces the electoral voters hand.
Click to expand...
That's a problem then, and makes me wonder why they're bothering at all.
balladofwindfishes said:
but the amount of times the president has won despite not having the popular vote can be counted on one hand.
Click to expand...
But the last time around sort of had some serious consequences.
 
G

gcubed

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
but the amount of times the president has won despite not having the popular vote can be counted on one hand.

So you have to wonder if adopting CA method is a little pointless (unlike a proportion method which could shake up elections)
Click to expand...

if there isn't a real negative, and it stops the 1 in a million that it happens, then why not?
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
ballad:

There have been 56 presidential elections. Four of them have had the electoral vote not reflect the popular vote. In 7% of presidential elections, the person with the most votes has lost. I would not trivialize such a number.


The electoral college needs to be abolished.
 
G

gcubed

Member
GaimeGuy said:
ballad:

There have been 56 presidential elections. Four of them have had the electoral vote not reflect the popular vote. In 7% of presidential elections, the person with the most votes has lost. I would not trivialize such a number.


The electoral college needs to be abolished.
Click to expand...

if it only ever happened 0.00001% of the time, and this prevented it with no negative consequences, there still isnt a reason not to do it.

Proportional voting though is the way to go. I'd love to see a 3rd party get some EVs
 
B

besada

Banned
I did point out at the beginning of my ranting that my largest frustration with this was the missed opportunity to do it right. I think that's something those of us who went through the healthcare debate can understand easily.

Legislation requires political will, capital, and money. If it's being spent on a sub-optimal solution, it's not being spent on better solutions. This particular plan has taken five years and an untold amount of money to get half the EV's they need. That work and cash might have otherwise been spent to fix the actual, serious problems in representation of the electoral college, rather than put a band-aid on top of a gushing wound. People get nervous when their elected representatives tinker with the underpinnings of Democracy too frequently, which creates a refraction period for further legislation.

It's just frustrating. You're also going to see increased scrutiny over legality issues, now. Before California it was mostly small states in support of the plan, but now it's non-ignorable.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
besada said:
I did point out at the beginning of my ranting that my largest frustration with this was the missed opportunity to do it right. I think that's something those of us who went through the healthcare debate can understand easily.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely understand.
 
E

eznark

Banned
besada said:
I did point out at the beginning of my ranting that my largest frustration with this was the missed opportunity to do it right. I think that's something those of us who went through the healthcare debate can understand easily.

Legislation requires political will, capital, and money. If it's being spent on a sub-optimal solution, it's not being spent on better solutions. This particular plan has taken five years and an untold amount of money to get half the EV's they need. That work and cash might have otherwise been spent to fix the actual, serious problems in representation of the electoral college, rather than put a band-aid on top of a gushing wound. People get nervous when their elected representatives tinker with the underpinnings of Democracy too frequently, which creates a refraction period for further legislation.

It's just frustrating. You're also going to see increased scrutiny over legality issues, now. Before California it was mostly small states in support of the plan, but now it's non-ignorable.
Click to expand...

Those two things together make this a particularly destructive practice for people who pine for electorate reform. If this does get enough participants to be reality, consensus (among the 3 lawyers I talked to at lunch who were going by my description of a story that I had read ten minutes earlier on a bill I had no idea existed) was that it's likely unconstitutional.

Strike this down after a long (and expensive) legal battle and people are less likely to fund your next escapade in electorate reform.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I don't recall the constitution saying anything about how states allocated their electoral votes among the presidential candidates.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Loudninja said:
Huntsman To Make 'Major Announcement' Wednesday


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/wires/live_wire/live_wire.html#1501
Click to expand...
Did he already announce that he's running for president, or will this actually be something that we don't know?

Btw, more polling shenanigans:

CNN said:
Democratic Party
Favorable 47%
Unfavorable 47%

Republican Party
Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 59%
Click to expand...

No, but they'll keep the House, guys. Really.

PPP said:
When it comes to the blame game among voters displeased with the compromise 33% in Colorado fault Congressional Republicans more to 23% for Obama and in North Carolina 35% say the GOP is more at fault to 21% who lay it more on the President.

The biggest indication that Obama came out ahead on this one may be in polls we'll release later this week though- Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in both of these states.
Click to expand...
So Obama's ahead in Colorado and North Carolina. If Kerry could count on both of those states, he'd be president right now.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
eznark said:
Huntsman: "I will be ending my campaign for President"

America: "Who are you, again?"
Click to expand...
Didn't think it was possible to do worse than Gingrich (Though maybe he's just smart enough to know he's done)
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
MetaPoliGAF: Is this thread moving considerably more quickly than the last one, or is that just a figment of my imagination?

Mike M said:
Didn't think it was possible to do worse than Gingrich (Though maybe he's just smart enough to know he's done)
Click to expand...
You come to that realization a lot more quickly when you're financing the campaign yourself.
 
A

Averon

Member
Why did Huntsman even enter the race, especially after the rise of the tea party? Being a former Obama official was a huge mark against him that I don't think he could have overcome. Should have waited until 2016.
 
B

besada

Banned
Maybe he's announcing a new campaign staff, since he booted his existing one. Probably more likely he's bowing out, but I'm not sure the fanfare is necessary when barely anyone knew he was running.

Oh, speaking of people who will never get elected, I saw a Ron Paul campaign truck at my farmer's market today. A white small truck with a banner cage in the back, asserting that we needed to take the country back...presumably from the people we put in charge in the first place.

Meta: Feels like it to me, too. Of course, I'm posting more than I have in over a year, so I just thought it was me.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Averon said:
Why did Huntsman even enter the race, especially after the rise of the tea party? Being a former Obama official was a huge mark against him that I don't think he could have overcome. Should have waited until 2016.
Click to expand...

I think he was hoping to get second and be the Republican Next In Line for 2016 like Romney is this cycle, McCain was last cycle etc.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
I feel marginally better about backing Huntsman, given this news:
@ppppolls Congrats to Tim Pawlenty on being the first serious candidate to poll behind Thad McCotter.
 
turnbuckle

turnbuckle

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
MetaPoliGAF: Is this thread moving considerably more quickly than the last one, or is that just a figment of my imagination?


You come to that realization a lot more quickly when you're financing the campaign yourself.
Click to expand...

Seems like it. I haven't posted much in the past few, but this one feels like I actually missed something if I don't check it for a day or two. Just the way I like it to be.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
I feel marginally better about backing Huntsman, given this news:
@ppppolls Congrats to Tim Pawlenty on being the first serious candidate to poll behind Thad McCotter.
Click to expand...

poor tpaw.

Maybe Huntsman is going to announce his intention of being Obamas running mate. Bipartisanship!
 
R

RustyNails

Member
eznark said:
Huntsman: "I will be ending my campaign for President"

America: "Who are you, again?"
Click to expand...
But TIME said he was the candidate democrats feared the most, and a possible answer to GOP's "presidential-candidate problem"

5F4MY.jpg


THE COOL KID
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
There are far too many prospective Republican presidential nominees. I hope people start dropping out sooner than later. I have an inkling there will be a Obama/Clinton battle with whoever gains enough support to take on Romney.
 
M

Mortrialus

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Apparently voters in WI are being told by people posing as officials, they need more ID than they legally require, turning away people who are legally allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Jesus fucking christ that is some of the most crooked shit I've ever heard.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Btw, more polling shenanigans:

No, but they'll keep the House, guys. Really. .
Click to expand...
Link:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09/cnn-poll-time-to-clean-house-in-congress/

Obama "gave them enough rope" and they hung themselves. Of course, the American people will forget this 6 months from now so scoring a political victory when there is no near-term election is pointless.




The Tea-party cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze me though.
-They hold the debt limit hostage until the last minute.
-S&P issues downgrade citing the political gridlock problem
-Tea party: S&P downgrade is Obama's fault because he didn't agree to massive cuts!

WTF?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Remember what happened to the Infinity Ward Founders?
8
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
|OT| NEOGAF 2020 Pick-Up Post! Show Us Your Gaming Goods + MORE [REAL PICS ONLY]
|OT| 2
85
12K
Godzilla Emu replied
Top Bottom