Page 10 of 10
#361
I think a big part of the reason behind people not voting is the whole electoral college thing. I mean, if I were to vote it would have been for Obama, and I live in a red state, so it would have been pretty much pointless.
#362
Quote by CaptDin
I think a big part of the reason behind people not voting is the whole electoral college thing. I mean, if I were to vote it would have been for Obama, and I live in a red state, so it would have been pretty much pointless.


I don't understand this idea and I see it all the time. Your vote only counts if your candidate wins?

I voted for Obama here in Ohio, he would have won even if I didn't vote. Does that mean my vote didn't count either?
#363
i just forgot to register.

no biggie. Obama won NJ.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#365
Quote by devourke
Would ya'll rather the popular vote than the electoral college?


We had this conversation in the Presidential Poll thread.

Personally, I like the Electoral College because of the way it makes presidents campaign.

However, if we moved to a popular vote, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
#366
Quote by iwannabesedated
I don't understand this idea and I see it all the time. Your vote only counts if your candidate wins?

I voted for Obama here in Ohio, he would have won even if I didn't vote. Does that mean my vote didn't count either?

Exactly. You live in Ohio, a pivotal swing state. Tennessee is always red without question.
#367
Quote by CaptDin
Exactly. You live in Ohio, a pivotal swing state. Tennessee is always red without question.


It was blue in 1992 and 1996, and it almost was again in 2000.
#368
Quote by iwannabesedated
We had this conversation in the Presidential Poll thread.

Personally, I like the Electoral College because of the way it makes presidents campaign.

However, if we moved to a popular vote, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

popular vote. it should be a matter of historical curiosity as to which states preferred which candidates.
#369
But again, that's besides the point. I don't understand why you feel like your vote would count differently in a popular vote election. If you only vote if you think your vote means anything at the state level, why would adding 100 million more votes make you feel like your vote means more? If anything, your vote is more valuable when you're only competing against the rest of your state.
#370
Quote by iwannabesedated
It was blue in 1992 and 1996, and it almost was again in 2000.

But, and I hate to pull this card; Obama is black. When it comes to the home state of the KKK, there's really no question what the outcome is gonna be in that situation. TN was blue in '92 and '96 because there were still a ton of the old school Dixiecrats still alive and voting. Now most of those people are dead and the neoconservatives pretty much hold the reigns indefinitely.
#371
Quote by iwannabesedated
But again, that's besides the point. I don't understand why you feel like your vote would count differently in a popular vote election. If you only vote if you think your vote means anything at the state level, why would adding 100 million more votes make you feel like your vote means more? If anything, your vote is more valuable when you're only competing against the rest of your state.

no, don't be silly come on dude. that would only make sense if your state was the only one that got to vote.
#372
Quote by iwannabesedated
But again, that's besides the point. I don't understand why you feel like your vote would count differently in a popular vote election. If you only vote if you think your vote means anything at the state level, why would adding 100 million more votes make you feel like your vote means more? If anything, your vote is more valuable when you're only competing against the rest of your state.

From my understanding of The America, a lot of states are always red and a lot of states are always blue but the country as a whole is pretty even. According to the people who've put forward theories as to the low voter turnout, if you live in a red state and you're a democrat casting a blue vote is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway full of red things. And I assume it's the same for republicans in blue states. So this dissuades people from voting. But if you took out the regional limits on voting and just added up all the dem votes and all the rep votes then people would probably think "Hey, my vote goes directly into the total tally no matter where I live" and then maybe voter turnout increases.
#373
Quote by CaptDin
But, and I hate to pull this card; Obama is black. When it comes to the home state of the KKK, there's really no question what the outcome is gonna be in that situation. TN was blue in '92 and '96 because there were still a ton of the old school Dixiecrats still alive and voting. Now most of those people are dead and the neoconservatives pretty much hold the reigns indefinitely.

You just had to bring racism in, didn't you? You are that guy.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#374
I'd be in favour of popular vote if I was an American. The only real downside is that a nation can become quite fractured with *random number above seven* political parties holding office.
#375
Quote by devourke
From my understanding of The America, a lot of states are always red and a lot of states are always blue but the country as a whole is pretty even. According to the people who've put forward theories as to the low voter turnout, if you live in a red state and you're a democrat casting a blue vote is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway full of red things. And I assume it's the same for republicans in blue states. So this dissuades people from voting. But if you took out the regional limits on voting and just added up all the dem votes and all the rep votes then people would probably think "Hey, my vote goes directly into the total tally no matter where I live" and then maybe voter turnout increases.


Still, my point is that one's vote matters just the same in an electoral or popular vote election.

Some people are not voting because of how you perceive the rest of your state will vote. In a popular vote election, there would be just as many people (in my opinion) not voting because of how they perceive the rest of the country would vote.

Not to mention, the popular vote and electoral college have only ever not agreed 3 times (out of 56). One could also argue that in 2000, if the recount had been finished, Al Gore would have won Florida and it would have only been 2 times.

It's not perfect, but I think the positives of the electoral college outweigh the negatives. It allows the smallest states to matter (if only the littlest bit) in a national election and assures that candidates have to campaign to the entire country. I'd imagine a Democratic campaign especially would just be visits back and forth between the East and West Coast getting the big cities. The rest of the country wouldn't matter to them at all.

But, as I've said, if we did go to a popular vote, I wouldn't fight against it. I also think it's something of an inevitability.
Last edited by iwannabesedated at Nov 8, 2012,
#376
Quote by devourke
From my understanding of The America, a lot of states are always red and a lot of states are always blue but the country as a whole is pretty even. According to the people who've put forward theories as to the low voter turnout, if you live in a red state and you're a democrat casting a blue vote is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway full of red things. And I assume it's the same for republicans in blue states. So this dissuades people from voting. But if you took out the regional limits on voting and just added up all the dem votes and all the rep votes then people would probably think "Hey, my vote goes directly into the total tally no matter where I live" and then maybe voter turnout increases.

Yes, I agree.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#378
President Obama won not only his home state (Hawaii) but also the state where he was senator (Illinois). Romney not only did not win his home state (Michigan) but also didn't win the state he governed in (Massachusetts). That there says a lot people.
Quote by SteveHouse
M. Night Shyamallama

#379
Quote by Neo Evil11
You just had to bring racism in, didn't you? You are that guy.


So, social mores take precedent over an attempt to be accurate, do they?

If there are racial factors at play, it's fine to mention them.
#380
Quote by CaptDin
But, and I hate to pull this card; Obama is black. When it comes to the home state of the KKK, there's really no question what the outcome is gonna be in that situation. TN was blue in '92 and '96 because there were still a ton of the old school Dixiecrats still alive and voting. Now most of those people are dead and the neoconservatives pretty much hold the reigns indefinitely.

The Klan supported Obama.
Quote by vintage x metal
I love you =] I can't say I was very fond of you when we first started talking because you trolled the hell out of my threads, but after talking to you here I've grown very attached to you.

Yeah, write to my fanclub about it, honey.
#382
How did Mitt Romney and the Republican Party blow it all so badly?

The short answer is that the GOP insisted on pushing backward-looking social issues in a country that is increasingly libertarian.

The White House, a Senate majority, and strengthened control in the House of Representatives was not simply within reach for the Party of Lincoln this election cycle. It was gift-wrapped and adorned with pretty little bows. President Barack Obama presided over the worst economy in memory—a situation greatly exacerbated by the very policies he implemented to restart the economy; U.S. foreign policy is a shambles and our standing even (especially?) in the countries we “liberated” recently from autocracy is plummeting; and a record number of voters had disaffiliated from the Democratic Party since 2008. The president was pulling bad numbers right up to the eve of the election.

And yet Obama won re-election easily and the Democrats gained a net two seats in the Senate (including wins in Missouri and Indiana that should have been easy Republican victories). That’s because the GOP, despite its endlessly repeated mantra of limited government, is wildly out of touch with the majority of Americans who consistently say they want the government to do less, spend less, and not enforce a single set of values.

There’s no question that on broadly defined social issues such as immigration, marriage equality, and drug policy, Barack Obama has been terrible. He’s deported record numbers of immigrants and his late-campaign exemption of some younger undocumented immigrants was one of the most cycnical policy changes imaginable. Yet he managed to increase his take of the Latino vote precisely because Mitt Romney and the Republicans are even worse (at least rhetorically) on the issue. Romney called for “self-deportation” during the Republican primary season and attacked Gov. Rick Perry—who pulls upward of 40 percent of Latino voters in Texas—for his mildly pro-immigrant stance (in his 2004 re-election bid, George W. Bush received around 40 percent on the Latino vote). If Republican representatives such as Steve King (R-Iowa) continue to talk about immigrants as akin to dogs and livestock, there’s no way that the party can expect Hispanics to vote for them. Or non-Hispanics who are rightly disturbed by such attitudes.

Similar dynamics hold true on issues such as drug policy and marriage equality, each of which passed handily in various state ballot initiatives. Obama has raided medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal under state law without a second thought. Now that Washington and Colorado have legalized not just medical marijuana but all pot, the GOP should stay true to its valorization of federalism and the states as “laboratories of democracy” and call for an end to the federal drug war. The same goes for gay marriage, which is supported by a majority of Americans and passed in Maryland, Maine, and Washington state—even as an anti-marriage equality amendment to Minnesota’s state constitution went down to defeat. It’s fully consistent for small-government Republicans—who rarely miss an opportunity to talk about returning “power” to the states—to champion these developments. As Romney has put it, "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction."

The GOP has a major problem with women voters, who perceive it as either hostile or indifferent to questions about reproductive freedom and choice. Obama won women's votes by 12 percentage points this time around, about the same as he did in 2008 (which suggests this year's result is not a stray indicator). There’s no question that the media and Democrats made a huge deal out of Todd Akin’s bizarre biological disquisitions and Richard Mourdock’s principled commitment to an extreme pro-life position. But the reason such statements resonated with voters is because they confirm the idea of the GOP as an anti-sex, anti-abortion party that routinely says the government is awful at everything it does but should have the final say over whether women can get abortions. That’s a contradictory message that is also wildly at odds with the 77 percent of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances.


Told you bitches Obama won because of his social issue stances, despite sucking ass as a president.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#384
Quote by captaincrunk
your personal blog of lies isn't evidence



I hear what he says all the time. God it's annoying.
Gear:
Paul Reed Smith SE Custom 24
Marshall MG30DFX
ISP Noise Decimator
Need a new amp. Any ideas? PM me


Quote by Kensai
Either you got the wrong thread or the gays in your state are very well hung.

#386
Thank you, rest of America. Why did I vote for Obama? Weighing his pros and cons, he comes out a few points up. Many of his policies have helped me and my family.

Why not Romney? Look at the last few pages of this thread: there are people arguing about whether or not REAGAN had effective economic policies. If we haven't decided by now, it's safe to say that economics is a field far removed from absolute science. Thus, no matter how good a businessman Romney may be, there is just no way he could guarantee a faster recovery. Especially considering that with the EU in the state it is in, the recession was never a uniquely American phenomenon. Thus I rarely vote on economic policies; to me it's all just flipping coins. I studied enough economics to know I'll never truly understand it enough to be president. I'll vote on things I understand, and I don't think I need to explain why Obama is much preferred on social and foreign policy issues.

Plus there's the fact that Romney has always been nothing more than a mannequin for the Republican party to dress up in their most fashionable policies. He never seems to have a clear position of his own. Ryan, as detestable as I find him, at least sticks by his values.

I also want to point out that TunerAddict is totally correct in that mobilizing apathetic voters is FAR more crucial than convincing undecided voters. Mostly I just want to brag; you can trace almost half of Obama's victory margin in Ohio to the 5% increase in voter turnout in my own Cuyahoga county (Cleveland).

One last thing that needs to be said as often as possible: Florida, you suck.
#388
Yes, Obama indeed won the election, but the problem is that the Republicans still control the House of Representatives, so this essentially means that the deadlock will continue.

The reason that there is no action is because of this deadlock. Nothing gets done. And we are headed over the fiscal cliff by January.

ron666
#389
I hope that Obama's promise to veto any bill extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is real (and I think it is) because I'd honestly rather see us careen off the fiscal cliff than let those ****ers dictate policy terms anymore.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#390
Quote by ron666
Yes, Obama indeed won the election, but the problem is that the Republicans still control the House of Representatives, so this essentially means that the deadlock will continue.

The reason that there is no action is because of this deadlock. Nothing gets done. And we are headed over the fiscal cliff by January.

ron666


The Republicans can't get any more political mileage from doing nothing. Obama is already re-elected and if nothing gets done in the next two years it will be obvious who's fault it is. If the GOP was smart, they'd try and work a deal out with the Democrats, at the very least look like they're responsible adults.

Also, the "fiscal cliff" is overblown.
#391
Democratic house candidates got way more votes than their counterparts this season. The only reason they don't have a majority right now is because of republican gerrymandering of voting districts after the 2010 elections.
Last edited by due 07 at Nov 11, 2012,
#392
Quote by iwannabesedated
The Republicans can't get any more political mileage from doing nothing. Obama is already re-elected and if nothing gets done in the next two years it will be obvious who's fault it is. If the GOP was smart, they'd try and work a deal out with the Democrats, at the very least look like they're responsible adults.

Also, the "fiscal cliff" is overblown.


Yeah I agree with you, it is high time that the Democrats and Republicans started working together to get something done.

But your comment about the "fiscal cliff" being overblown makes me wonder. I think that the cuts will total close to $1 trillion dollars if there is not agreement. This is a pretty huge sum of money that will suddenly disappear from the economy. Such a huge loss could easily push the U.S. back into a severe recession.

Could you please explain your comment?

ron666
#393
^do you only ever check (and then bump) threads you post in like once a fortnight?
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do