Support NeoGAF

[Tim-E]

Great new blog, it will be forever bookmarked.

Just catching up on this thread, but didn't BM during the election throw out the idea of divvying out EV's per state based on the number of votes each candidate receives, thus giving one candidate the majority of EV's(instead of all EV's). So, in my home state of MS, for example, the Democrat would still get a few EV's instead of none.

I'm probably fucking this up somehow.

But yeah, great blog.

Thanks!


Is there any polling or any indication at all that a NPV is popular or something that lawmakers are considering? In a nation that loves its traditions, completely getting rid of something that's been around for hundreds of years won't set over well with many lawmakers. While I abhor the efforts to gerrymander electoral college votes, getting something like that done in an individual state's legislature is more likely than the dramatic process to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

I know the arguments against the Electoral College, but I honestly don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Talon]

What was the purpose of having an electoral college anyways? To just make it easier to focus campaign funds in areas that are purple?

The same reason we have a representative democracy - the founding fathers didn't think a direct democracy made sense when not every citizen is on equal footing (unwashed masses).

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What was the purpose of having an electoral college anyways? To just make it easier to focus campaign funds in areas that are purple?

It was the only way to get small-population states to agree to it.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm kind of conflicted about letting women in combat on the front lines. If they can perform to the same standards as men all the more power to them, but I'd bet a good portion of them can't. Especially for special forces units, I don't see them being able to keep up for the most part so effectively those units should remain closed.

They wouldn't be let into combat if they couldn't keep up right? And doesn't that happen already with men?

 

[LosDaddie]

Damn, I tried to read everything in the last few pages, but my head started hurting. :lol

I love you, PoliGAF.

Man I really doubt that...I just can't see Rubio getting through the primaries. I guess I just don't see the really red states voting in a Hispanic. I could see him as a VP pick though...

Yeah, I meant Rubio as the VP candidate. I don't see him at the top of the GOP ticket. Then again, I never thought a Mormon would ever be a prez candidate for the GOP. I guess that's what happens when a bunch of complete morons are running for the GOP ticket

 

[The Technomancer]

The same reason we have a representative democracy - the founding fathers didn't think a direct democracy made sense when not every citizen is on equal footing (unwashed masses).

Eh. The direct democracy is still a bad idea on a policy level because no citizen can be informed enough to make sound decisions about every piece of policy in consideration and even being asked to would be a large burden (I certainly would not want to). But its not like in the current system the electors are making more "informed" decisions in the presidential election than their constituents, they vote as their constituents do 99.9 percent of the time.

 

[ido]

Why not use a percentage based EV on the total number of votes per state? Almost a PV per state deciding the amount of EV's per candidate.

X state has 10 EV's.

Candidate 1 receives 51%
Candidate 2 receives 48%
The rest go toward a third party.

Round up on the majority. Candidate 1 gets 6 EV's, 2 gets 4.

Also, I am not very smart and I am sure this idea is stupid, but I just hate the thought of gerrymandering.

 

[Mike M]

Why not use a percentage based EV on the total number of votes per state? Almost a PV per state deciding the amount of EV's per candidate.

X state has 10 EV's.

Candidate 1 receives 51%
Candidate 2 receives 48%
The rest go toward a third party.

Round up on the majority. Candidate 1 gets 6 EV's, 2 gets 4.

Also, I am not very smart and I am sure this idea is stupid, but I just hate the thought of gerrymandering.

Proportional is better than WTA.

Basically with a system where the loser of the PV has any possibility of winning the election is fatally flawed and needs to be reformed. Actually, that might still be possible under proportional (I haven't run any numbers. Math is hard.), but the probability would be drastically less.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Eh. The direct democracy is still a bad idea on a policy level because no citizen can be informed enough to make sound decisions about every piece of policy in consideration and even being asked to would be a large burden (I certainly would not want to). But its not like in the current system the electors are making more "informed" decisions in the presidential election than their constituents, they vote as their constituents do 99.9 percent of the time.

California and its prop system highlights the failures of direct democracy.

 

[Odothehero]

They wouldn't be let into combat if they couldn't keep up right? And doesn't that happen already with men?

Personally I don't think it matters if they are as good as men. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

1. Seeing a woman get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if she brings all the assets of being a great soldier, she is still bringing in an additional weakness that she can't do anything about.

And 2. having women in the front lines means they are at a much higher risk of getting captured. And women getting captured will probably get raped/molested more than men do. Which would then feed into number 1, as that would mess other soldiers up psychologically.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, women bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

 

[Magni]

Representative democracy and the minority view would be represented perfectly in Congress itself. It's not like it would just go away with a National Popular Vote.

That's what I've been arguing for pages. If the EC is such a great idea to protect small (rural) states, why doesn't any state use it for the gubernatorial/senatorial election to protect rural counties/districts?

Why not use a percentage based EV on the total number of votes per state? Almost a PV per state deciding the amount of EV's per candidate.

X state has 10 EV's.

Candidate 1 receives 51%
Candidate 2 receives 48%
The rest go toward a third party.

Round up on the majority. Candidate 1 gets 6 EV's, 2 gets 4.

Also, I am not very smart and I am sure this idea is stupid, but I just hate the thought of gerrymandering.

Might as well make it NPV and forget the rounding errors.

 

[Fenderputty]

The last few pages had me systematically pulling my hair out while reading.

 

[ido]

Might as well make it NPV and forget the rounding errors.

Hm, but wouldn't this be a slight way to make smaller states "count" more? Because a candidate may do extremely well numbers wise in a state, but those numbers would only affect the EV's for that state, and not as a whole.

My idea is honestly not very smart, but it just makes me brainstorm the best way to determine how each vote counts.

Thankfully Bams won both, so the GOP may be hesitant to really argue in favor of a NPV.

 

[Talon]

Filibuster deal has been reached in the Senate.

The deal would address the filibuster on the motion to proceed, which had regularly prevented the Senate from even considering legislation and was a major frustration for Reid. The new procedure will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on judicial nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours after cloture is invoked.

The two leaders also agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

 

[pigeon]

1. Seeing a woman get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness.

I would love to see some actual science on this.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, women bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

How are women bringing weakness to the unit? The only example you've provided is an example of the emotional frailty of MEN. Shouldn't we ban men from combat given that their poor little hearts just can't take the violence?

 

[remist]

Personally I don't think it matters if they are as good as men. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

1. Seeing a woman get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if she brings all the assets of being a great soldier, she is still bringing in an additional weakness that she can't do anything about.

And 2. having women in the front lines means they are at a much higher risk of getting captured. And women getting captured will probably get raped/molested more than men do. Which would then feed into number 1, as that would mess other soldiers up psychologically.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, women bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

What are you basing this on? Are men really psychologically more harmed by the death or capture of a female than a male? I don't think that our soldiers are really that much a slave to their passions that they can't handle the death of female squadmate without "uncontrollable protective aggression" clouding their judgement.

 

[gcubed]

Representative democracy and the minority view would be represented perfectly in Congress itself. It's not like it would just go away with a National Popular Vote.

after reading through 3 mind numbing pages on my commute i wanted to come back to basically post this. Kansas farmers have their say in congress, which is the way its designed. To keep a faulty system for a presidential election and basis it on small blocks of voters in rural areas is a bad premise. The small blocks create districts and they have direct representation in both the state and federal branches of the government

 

[Fenderputty]

How are women bringing weakness to the unit? The only example you've provided is an example of the emotional frailty of MEN. Shouldn't we ban men from combat given that their poor little hearts just can't take the violence?

Every argument I've seen regarding women being allowed to fight boils down to this.

 

[gcubed]

Every argument I've seen regarding women being allowed to fight boils down to this.

emotional frailty combined with unchecked sexual desires

 

[Chichikov]

Filibuster deal has been reached in the Senate.

More stupid convoluted rules that rewards the person who can lawyer them the best.
Fuck you Harry Reid.

And I'm so fucking sick and tired of the "without the filibuster social security would've been a private account" meme, it's bullshit.
It's not called the third rail of politics because of the filibuster.

 

[The Librarian]

That's not reform. Ugh.

 

[Odothehero]

I would love to see some actual science on this.

Did a quick google search. I couldn't find an actual journal/medical article on it.
I found some news articles saying it was the reason the IDF gives for limiting frontline women soldiers, and some quotes from soldiers.

Camp Pendleton combat Marine Carlos Laguna, who left the Corps in 2011, agreed.

"The screams of women, they have a big psychological effect on men. A woman just has a different pitch," said Laguna, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder after two tours in Iraq. "If we're in a firefight and a woman is shot or lost her arm, male Marines like me would want to stop and help. It's our nature to help women."

And this blog (so not super scientific) which references a study it doesn't link to:

women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

How are women bringing weakness to the unit? The only example you've provided is an example of the emotional frailty of MEN. Shouldn't we ban men from combat given that their poor little hearts just can't take the violence?

I believe some armed forces have women only units for just this reason

EDIT: So looking at the rest of that blog, apparently Ann Coulter is a contributor... so maybe take the assertions in that blog with a big grain of salt. But I'll try and find the study it referred to

 

[B-Dubs]

Filibuster deal has been reached in the Senate.

.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

emotional frailty combined with unchecked sexual desires

Pretty much. We suck.

 

[mckmas8808]

Qazaq is making an observation. Whether it's a good thing or not, whether it's fair and just or not, it is objectively true that a national popular vote system will favor whatever party appeals most to urban voters, since urban populations are growing rapidly.

So what stops one party from trying to get the "urban" vote in the future?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Filibuster deal has been reached in the Senate.

Disappointing. Especially disappointing considering much more robust reforms were supported by the majority caucus and could have been implemented in the normal order of business. I can't tell if Reid yielded to political pressure or if he's just too much a creature of the Senate, too infatuated with the way things are always done, to be comfortable with reforms that went further. Dems have a larger, more progressive caucus, but his deal ensures that by and large it will not be reflected in policy.

Reid's tough talk prior to this deal rings incredibly hollow now.

Still, I'm trying to take the (very) long game here. And marginal reforms are better than none. It's a very small step forward, when we could have had a large one.

 

[RDreamer]

From what I'm hearing women are pretty much already in "combat" roles, just not officially. We don't have normal warfare anymore. There isn't a front line and a non-front line, so women in any units now are already practically in combat roles and they're most definitely in danger of getting killed or captured, etc.

What the official ban also did was stop women from progressing in the ranks, since you need that combat experience to go forward, and right now women can't do that, despite, again, being basically already put in the same sorts of dangerous positions.

We're already using women in roles in Afghanistan for outreach and things like that, and like I said any of these situations can turn into a combat situation anyway.

 

[B-Dubs]

From what I'm hearing women are pretty much already in "combat" roles, just not officially. We don't have normal warfare anymore. There isn't a front line and a non-front line, so women in any units now are already practically in combat roles and they're most definitely in danger of getting killed or captured, etc.

What the official ban also did was stop women from progressing in the ranks, since you need that combat experience to go forward, and right now women can't do that, despite, again, being basically already put in the same sorts of dangerous positions.

We're already using women in roles in Afghanistan for outreach and things like that, and like I said any of these situations can turn into a combat situation anyway.

Also before the change women wouldn't be able to receive combat medals even though they may have earned them. The whole thing was just messed up and the change is long over due.

 

[cashman]

In layman's terms can somebody explain to me what is filibustering and why does it need to be reformed?

 

[Talon]

From what I'm hearing women are pretty much already in "combat" roles, just not officially. We don't have normal warfare anymore. There isn't a front line and a non-front line, so women in any units now are already practically in combat roles and they're most definitely in danger of getting killed or captured, etc.

What the official ban also did was stop women from progressing in the ranks, since you need that combat experience to go forward, and right now women can't do that, despite, again, being basically already put in the same sorts of dangerous positions.

We're already using women in roles in Afghanistan for outreach and things like that, and like I said any of these situations can turn into a combat situation anyway.

Iraq vet and Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth: "I didn't lose my legs in a bar fight. I'm pretty sure it was in combat."

 

[Chichikov]

In layman's terms can somebody explain to me what is filibustering and why does it need to be reformed?

It's literally a loophole.
No one thought about the case where someone just doesn't stop talking.
Because senators love power and that maneuver grant any individual enormous influence on the political process, they started to codify it, and now people act like it's an integral part of our democracy.

If you want more details, the Wikipedia article is great.

 

[B-Dubs]

In layman's terms can somebody explain to me what is filibustering and why does it need to be reformed?

Historically the Filibuster has consisted of a Senator, or group thereof, delaying the vote on a bill by standing up and refusing to yield the floor. They would give speeches; force the bill in its entirety to be read, amendments and all; read from cookbooks, magazines and even novels. That is until modern times. Currently the threat of a Filibuster is enough to stop progress on a bill in virtually any stage of the process.

Basically instead of needing to stand up and delay passage of the bill, as has been done since it's inception, now just yelling (or texting in) filibuster is enough. A Senator didn't even need to be in the damn room to filibuster!

 

[Fenderputty]

emotional frailty combined with unchecked sexual desires

I mean I understand wanting to be capable of passing the same physical tests as men when choosing who gets to stand the front line. That fine. Each person, regardless of sex, should pass the same test. Beyond that though, each argument has basically boiled down to, "men are un-evolved creatures who can't be around a vagina without acting like assholes."

 

[RDreamer]

Also, I'm pretty sure you could probably produce some studies of the effects of black people on the white units before we desegregated the military, and I'm pretty sure that would look bad and be "good" evidence not to do it. In my mind that's shitty evidence. In my mind you can't use studies that basically reflect racism or sexism of the day in order to prove that racism/sexism should continue. Then you've just looped onto yourself. Either we believe they're equal in opportunity or we fucking don't. And I'm pretty sure we do.

 

[Odothehero]

I mean I understand wanting to be capable of passing the same physical tests as men when choosing who gets to stand the front line. That fine. Each person, regardless of sex, should pass the same test. Beyond that though, each argument has basically boiled down to, "men are un-evolved creatures who can't be around a vagina without acting like assholes."

The opposite really: Men have evolved specifically to be protective of women. I think that trait was probably Darwinianly selected for

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

They just want a foreign policy "scandal" to make the Administration look bad because Republicans lost their stranglehold on being seen as excellent in foreign policy. George Bush damaged them in so many ways. Hard to push their agenda of less government when the things they are supposed to get right, fail so hard. Just makes them look like pricks who do not care about normal, average americans who are sent to die and they only care about their own, big-industrial interests (ie big oil, big military, etc).

Fixed because now I can appreciate GWB's legacy as it truly is.

 

[Hitokage]

The opposite really: Men have evolved specifically to be protective of women. I think that trait was probably Darwinianly selected for

Explains domestic violence and rape.

 

[The Librarian]

Disappointing. Especially disappointing considering much more robust reforms were supported by the majority caucus and could have been implemented in the normal order of business. I can't tell if Reid yielded to political pressure or if he's just too much a creature of the Senate, too infatuated with the way things are always done, to be comfortable with reforms that went further. Dems have a larger, more progressive caucus, but his deal ensures that by and large it will not be reflected in policy.

Reid's tough talk prior to this deal rings incredibly hollow now.

Still, I'm trying to take the (very) long game here. And marginal reforms are better than none. It's a very small step forward, when we could have had a large one.

I still contend it'll be gone or altered substantially the next time one party gets full control of the federal government.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Marginal change is irrelevant and rather unproductive considering one side can easily change the rules with the constitutional option; this is like taking the stairs instead of just jumping on the elevator right next to the stairs. I doubt McConnell would have similar qualms about minority rights if republicans retake the senate in 2014, and republicans retain the house.

 

[GordonShumway]

Personally I don't think it matters if they are as good as men. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

1. Seeing a woman get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if she brings all the assets of being a great soldier, she is still bringing in an additional weakness that she can't do anything about.

And 2. having women in the front lines means they are at a much higher risk of getting captured. And women getting captured will probably get raped/molested more than men do. Which would then feed into number 1, as that would mess other soldiers up psychologically.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, women bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

I totally agree with you.

Also, I don't think friends should be able to serve together, or any sort of bonding should be allowed in the military. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

Seeing a friend get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if they bring all the assets of being a great soldier, they is still bringing in an additional weakness that they can't do anything about.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, friends bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

 

[Oblivion]

Those filibuster reforms sound pretty shitty. At the very least I was hoping Reid would get rid of the filibuster entirely for judicial appointments and just ram that shit through the next four years.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Marginal change is irrelevant and rather unproductive considering one side can easily change the rules with the constitutional option; this is like taking the stairs instead of just jumping on the elevator right next to the stairs. I doubt McConnell would have similar qualms about minority rights if republicans retake the senate in 2014, and republicans retain the house.

I don't consider marginal change to be unproductive, quite the opposite. Small changes just increase the likelihood of further changes, possibly more dramatic ones should the GOP take control and retaliate. And I think that's a good thing, losing the filibuster regardless of party control. That's always been my position.

Minority rights are protected in the structure of the Senate itself. Montana has the same number of votes as California.

 

[RDreamer]

I totally agree with you.

Also, I don't think friends should be able to serve together, or any sort of bonding should be allowed in the military. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

Seeing a friend get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if they bring all the assets of being a great soldier, they is still bringing in an additional weakness that they can't do anything about.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, friends bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

Friends shouldn't serve together? No bonding allowed? What?

Don't most units become friends because of their trials, even? How the hell do you suppose you're going to stop that?

Also, friends tend to be more driven to work together to accomplish something and/or not let each other fail. What about the positives of bonding?

 

[Fenderputty]

The opposite really: Men have evolved specifically to be protective of women. I think that trait was probably Darwinianly selected for

This basically proves my point. We're not cavemen anymore and shouldn’t be acting like it. If there's some basic evolutionary urge for men to act like shitheads when a woman is around, I would hope our mental capacity has developed enough to be able to control them. I get the urge to punch a coworker daily and don’t. I get the urge to hit on almost every attractive woman I see but I have class and a wife so I don't. Men who are too weak minded to control themselves and work hand in hand with a woman simply because she's a woman should probably be reevaluated for the current positions.

 

[Hitokage]

Harry Reid is incapable of understanding what is going on with his own Senate. He's too much in denial to realize that these gentleman's agreements he keeps trying to make simply aren't worth anything anymore.

Friends shouldn't serve together? No bonding allowed? What?

Poe's Law.

 

[Fenderputty]

Friends shouldn't serve together? No bonding allowed? What?

Don't most units become friends because of their trials, even? How the hell do you suppose you're going to stop that?

Also, friends tend to be more driven to work together to accomplish something and/or not let each other fail. What about the positives of bonding?

I'm hoping he was being sarcasatic to show the flawed logic being used against women. It was pretty much a copy and paste with women being changed to friend.

 

[RDreamer]

Poe's Law.

Wait, did I miss sarcasm?

I'm so confused...

Edit: Shit, yeah, looking at that again and you're probably right, lol. Serves me right for posting at work

Carry on then.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

This basically proves my point. We're not cavemen anymore and shouldn’t be acting like it. If there's some basic evolutionary urge for men to act like shitheads when a woman is around, I would hope our mental capacity has developed enough to be able to control them. I get the urge to punch a coworker daily and don’t. I get the urge to hit on almost every attractive woman I see but I have class and a wife so I don't. Men who are too weak minded to control themselves and work hand in hand with a woman simply because she's a woman should probably be reevaluated for the current positions.

And because we do have policewomen/firefighters in already hostile situations (and protocol in place) their reasoning has been null and void.

 

[jamesinclair]

Can we recall Reid please?

He makes Obama seem good at holding steady

 

[GordonShumway]

Wait, did I miss sarcasm?

I'm so confused...

Edit: Shit, yeah, looking at that again and you're probably right, lol. Serves me right for posting at work

Carry on then.

No problems, didn't want to come out and say I was being sarcastic in the post, but being new here and given what other people post, I can get the confusion.