Attention U.S.A.

[lukin69]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

State A has 10,000,000 voters. (Worth, let's say 10 Electoral College Votes)

State B has 9,000,000 voters. (Worth, for example, 9 votes)


If 5,000,001 people in State A vote D, the ENTIRE state is counted as D (10 votes)

If *ALL* of state B votes R, then (duh) the whole state votes R (9 votes)

In this case, even though a TOTAL of 13,999.999 voted R and 5,000,001 voted D, there would still be more D votes (10 for D, 9 for R.

This is just a very very stupid method. Period.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/ its the way they wanted it.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I deal with the writers of the Federal Register on a weekly basis...

Hell, my company has *FIXED* the Federal Register on more than one occasion (once causing the GPO/FedReg to contact *US* to provide them with the CORRECT information for THIER OWN PUBLICATIONS).

I have little faith in the Federal Register. I have even less faith in the GPO.


As for the ElecColl, it's an antiquated system that was outdated when the telegraph was invented.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Hmm... Taking a look over at Wikipedia has to say, it paints a bit of a different picture, suggesting that a lot more states are up for grabs, but that Obama safely has a whoppin 243 of the votes needed, to McCain having only 118. And according to them, these are the swing states:

• Florida, (27)
• Pennsylvania, (21)
• Ohio, (20)
• Georgia, (15)
• North Carolina, (15)
• Virginia, (13)
• Indiana, (11)
• Missouri, (11)
• Arizona, (10)
• Colorado, (9)
• Arkansas, (6)
• Nevada, (5)
• West Virginia, (5)
• Montana, (3)
• North Dakota, (3)
• South Dakota, (3)

This paints a much more dire picture for McCain. Not only are a number of potential Obama-favored battleground states more or less off the table, another 48 states are suggested to be strongly leaning toward him, 21 votes more than is necessary. In other words, it'd be to the point where Obama could concede Pennsylvania entirely, and still win if keeping just Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada alone. Meanwhile, McCain, including both the strong and weak leaning states, only picks up 53 votes, bringing him only to 171, 99 votes short. And only 29 in states on the fence... The rest lying in predicted favor of Obama, meaning McCain would have to take 70 votes' worth of Obama-leaning states. Of course, I wonder if Wikipedia might actually have a political bias.

 

[woodycook]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Either way, Same shit; different asshole. Anyone agree?

Sure one wants MORE troops in the middle east and the other one wants to take MORE of our freedoms, but nevertheless we aren't moving back towards the roots of our country: The Constitution.

Both want to spend more money fighting terrorism. Like wtf.
More people die of peanut allergens than terrorism every year. Sounds like there should be a war on peanuts. It sounds just as stupid and would provide the same shit results.

War on drugs, War on Terrorism, War in the Middle East.
All unneeded, and none have been won.

I declare a war on idiots... starting with Palin.

 

[ne14pic]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

well maybe peanuts are biological terrorist weapon, damn you George Washington Carver

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I blame the cotton gin.


Nowait... I DRINK the gin (and vermouth and vodka, shaken until very cold).


Never mind.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Of course, I wonder if Wikipedia might actually have a political bias.

This is the same site that proclaimed, for quite a long time, that Professional Wrestler Glenn Jacobs (aka Kane) won the Nobel Peace Prize for preventing a war.

Not sure on the bias, but I'd imagine that it's safe to say that it's not always 100% correct ;->

 

[Circa The Image]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Today.

Gogogogogogogogogo.

 

[Digatalas]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Get rid of the Electoral College and I might consider voting a less silly idea...

EXACTLY!!! Woot! he understands

 

[Muggz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Get rid of the main 2 party system aswell plz. But yea must suck to be an american voter most of the time.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I feel that if the Electoral College was abolished and replaced with a national vote, that would utterly eliminate any chance a third-party candidate would have. Due to the electoral college, a number of third-party candidates have been able to make grounds and earn electoral votes, and allowing for sub-majority victories.

Without the electoral college, we'd be seeing a LOT of elections thrown to the House of Representatives... Because the rules for that give one vote per state, controlled by the majority within that state's delegation, that more or less eliminates any third-party votes, as every district for the house is so Gerrymandered.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I'll disagree, and here's why:

Ross Perot, big ears and all, got quite a lot of individual voters (18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065)

According to the electoral college, though, he got 0% of the votes.


As it stands now, NO third party can realistically win a Presidential Election in the United States.


Now, maybe if the ElecCol were to, say, split it's votes based on the percent of the popular vote for that state (IE a state is worth 10, it votes 60% R, 30% D, 10% I, it would be worth 6 votes to the R-candidate, 3 for the D, and 1 for the I... Round up or down, whatever), then it would be a bit better.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I'll disagree, and here's why:

Ross Perot, big ears and all, got quite a lot of individual voters (18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065)

According to the electoral college, though, he got 0% of the votes.

As it stands now, NO third party can realistically win a Presidential Election in the United States.

You're apparently a bit rusty on your history, else you'd know why Ross Perot (or Ralph Nader) is a horrific example of a third-party candidate for President; there were four elections in the 20th century where a third-party candidate was able to score not just electoral votes, but multiple state's worth: 1912, 1948, 1960, an 1968. In the first, Theodore Roosevelt managed to gather roughly 1/6 of the electoral votes. Most impressive, and most underlining the ability of the Electoral College's opportunity for third-party candidates, was 1948, where Strom Thurmond managed to get only 2.4% of the popular vote, yet got 7.4% of the electoral vote.

Now, maybe if the ElecCol were to, say, split it's votes based on the percent of the popular vote for that state (IE a state is worth 10, it votes 60% R, 30% D, 10% I, it would be worth 6 votes to the R-candidate, 3 for the D, and 1 for the I... Round up or down, whatever), then it would be a bit better.

I do agree that a form of proportional representation would make sense for the Electoral College. Personally, I'd favor it more than the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That would GAURANTEE that third-party candidates would never have a shot, ever.

One thing that a lot of national-popular-vote supporters fail to remember is that while yeah, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote, his progress toward a popular vote win was still nill, because the NPVIC still keeps it a "first-past-the-post" system, and makes it in fact moreso because it unifies it into a single giant race, far beyond what anyone could reach without the power of either the Democrat or Republican parties.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

So it's been 40 years since a 3rd party has had a chance... As I was saying... ;->

where Strom Thurmond managed to get only 2.4% of the popular vote, yet got 7.4% of the electoral vote.

And another example of why the electoral college doesn't work ;->

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Naw, the problem is that third-parties are trying to take the Democrats and Republicans head-on here. Only one candidate ever had success to some degree that way, and that was Theodore Roosevelt, so he had the distinct advantage of being a prior president who had very high approval ratings. (and was running against one of the weakest of all US Presidents)

If they try to canvas and spread out their efforts across the entire nation, no one will ever succeed. Ross Perot showed how far one could get with that method even with billions of dollars on his side. Ralph Nader? He's absolutely pathetic, only noteworthy for taking 2.7% in 2000... In 2004, he got only 0.38%. And this year, he similarly got well under 1%. He's over-hyped, and has vastly too little popularity to even consider meriting an actual chance at the Presidency.

Rather, my reasoning is that the very reason a lot of states want a national popular vote is an opportunity for third-parties to level the playing field. BECAUSE only a handful of states will receive attention from the major parties, it gives third parties an option of either focusing on a handful of important states, or possibly launching an attack from behind on states that are normally "safe" from one of the two major parties, but would be open to a third party. For instance, I think that with their resources, it could be quite possible for, say, the Green Party to manage to take the West Coast if they focused there.

 

[Ezra Everett]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Didn't vote.
No jury duty for me!

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Voter registration is no longer a requirement for jury duty in most states.


A driver's liscense and/or ID are all that is needed.

My brother has never registered to vote (and also somehow missed out on Selective Service registration), and still gets called up for jury duty.

*I* was called up for jury duty before I'd ever registered to vote, for that matter...