T1B

Goobs, I'm not suggesting that the outcome is preordained, I'm saying that people's minds are already set, and they're set entirely along party lines. Unless Obama or Romney does something utterly mental in the next couple of months, it basically no longer matters what either guys says or does. No one is going to change their vote over some stupid thing Romney said in July or August, just like they're not going to predicate their vote on whether he offered up a sufficient number of tax returns.

No one cares about any of that crap, just as no one cares about the whole Birther issue. The people who would hold any of these things against that candidate were never going to vote for him anyway. They're just looking for talking points to buttress their argument.

In the end, good luck finding a hardcore Romney fan, period, much less one who would ever change his vote to Obama based on something as silly as old tax returns or throwaway comments made during the summer. Conversely, you'll have an even harder time finding an Obama hater who could ever be persuaded to vote for him now.

Romney doesn't matter, is the point. This is a single referendum election, and that referendum is about nothing other than Barack Obama.

No, the outcome isn't preordained, at least insofar as the final tally is concerned. We still need to go through the process, obviously. In a sense, though, yes, the outcome really is already decided, as no one at this point is going to switch teams. We just don't know yet what that outcome will be.

Van is correct in that there are a whole crap load of us who wouldn't vote for the idiot currently in office. We would stay home before voting for the other idiot.

Just the same as there are large numbers who will vote for Obama regardless of his incompetence just due to the color of his skin.

trev wrote:Goobs is voting for Romney? Yeah, right.

Yes.

Van wrote:Goobs, I'm not suggesting that the outcome is preordained, I'm saying that people's minds are already set, and they're set entirely along party lines. Unless Obama or Romney does something utterly mental in the next couple of months, it basically no longer matters what either guys says or does. No one is going to change their vote over some stupid thing Romney said in July or August, just like they're not going to predicate their vote on whether he offered up a sufficient number of tax returns.

Then why do poll numbers move from month to month?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:Goobs, I'm not suggesting that the outcome is preordained, I'm saying that people's minds are already set, and they're set entirely along party lines. Unless Obama or Romney does something utterly mental in the next couple of months, it basically no longer matters what either guys says or does. No one is going to change their vote over some stupid thing Romney said in July or August, just like they're not going to predicate their vote on whether he offered up a sufficient number of tax returns.

Then why do poll numbers move from month to month?

The moon's gravitational pull, dumbfuck.

Jsc810 wrote:Sure we do. Obama gets 300+ electoral college votes.

We seriously need to shitcan the fucking Electoral College. This isn't 1784 anymore. We have the ability now to tabulate votes in a timely manner. One person, one vote. Period. No more of this nonsense whereby a guy can win a state only by the slimmest of margins yet still garner all its electoral votes.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:Goobs, I'm not suggesting that the outcome is preordained, I'm saying that people's minds are already set, and they're set entirely along party lines. Unless Obama or Romney does something utterly mental in the next couple of months, it basically no longer matters what either guys says or does. No one is going to change their vote over some stupid thing Romney said in July or August, just like they're not going to predicate their vote on whether he offered up a sufficient number of tax returns.

Then why do poll numbers move from month to month?

They don't poll the same people every month. If they did, they'd basically get the same results every time.

Van wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Sure we do. Obama gets 300+ electoral college votes.

We seriously need to shitcan the fucking Electoral College. This isn't 1784 anymore. We have the ability now to tabulate votes in a timely manner. One person, one vote. Period. No more of this nonsense whereby a guy can win a state only by the slimmest of margins yet still garner all its electoral votes.

In that case we should probably shitcan the two Senators per state model as well.

Why? Representation by population is covered by the House, not the Senate.

Van wrote:Why? Representation by population is covered by the House, not the Senate.

You used the "one person one vote" as a reason to get rid of the electoral college. It applies even moreso to the Senate. Why should each resident of Wyoming have as much representation as 66 residents of California in what's arguably the more powerful of the two legislative houses? If it's not a legitimate reason to change the Senate rules then it's no more a legitimate reason to change the EC. Pretty simple.

Jsc810 wrote:But it is so much fun watching the Republicans implode.

It is all falling apart.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... king_poll/

You remain an ass fucked simpleton.

Van wrote: We seriously need to shitcan the fucking Electoral College.

No, we seriously don't. If you're too ignorant or too stupid to figure out why, you should simply refrain from further comment.

Mikey wrote: Why should each resident of Wyoming have as much representation as 66 residents of California

Because Senators are representing states not residents (theoretically).

mvscal wrote:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... king_poll/

Of course this will all change when the teleprompter in chief cleans Romney's clock in the debates. Not to mention the VP candidate vs. Joe Plugs.

Sirfindafold wrote:

mvscal wrote:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... king_poll/

Of course this will all change when the teleprompter in chief cleans Romney's clock in the debates. Not to mention the VP candidate vs. Joe Plugs.

Nobody gives a fuck.



Get fucked.

Mikey wrote:You used the "one person one vote" as a reason to get rid of the electoral college. It applies even moreso to the Senate. Why should each resident of Wyoming have as much representation as 66 residents of California in what's arguably the more powerful of the two legislative houses? If it's not a legitimate reason to change the Senate rules then it's no more a legitimate reason to change the EC. Pretty simple.

Not in the least. The House is designed to balance the Senate by giving voting power in equal proportion to a state's population. The Senate is designed to balance the House by giving each state an equal say, otherwise the smaller states wouldn't have any.

The presidential election offers no equivalent structure of checks and balances. All a candidate needs to do is win the correct handful of states by the tiniest of margins and he will be swept into office despite the fact that he may have lost the popular vote. He could win California, New York, Texas, Florida and Ohio by half-point margins while getting stomped in thirty-five other states and still win the election.

The notion that tens of millions of votes from Californians and New Yorkers become meaningless simply because a guy wins those states is just asinine. There is simply no longer a single compelling argument that can be made against one person/one vote.

mvscal can bluster all he wants, but a straight popular vote has no downside. The candidate who garners the most total votes will win every time, and a vote from Wyoming will count just as much as a vote from California. With our current system, that same vote from Wyoming can easily count for more than a vote from California, which is patently ridiculous.

Van wrote:

Mikey wrote:You used the "one person one vote" as a reason to get rid of the electoral college. It applies even moreso to the Senate. Why should each resident of Wyoming have as much representation as 66 residents of California in what's arguably the more powerful of the two legislative houses? If it's not a legitimate reason to change the Senate rules then it's no more a legitimate reason to change the EC. Pretty simple.

Not in the least. The House is designed to balance the Senate by giving voting power in equal proportion to a state's population. The Senate is designed to balance the House by giving each state an equal say, otherwise the smaller states wouldn't have any.

The presidential election offers no equivalent structure of checks and balances. All a candidate needs to do is win the correct handful of states by the tiniest of margins and he will be swept into office despite the fact that he may have lost the popular vote. He could win California, New York, Texas, Florida and Ohio by half-point margins while getting stomped in thirty-five other states and still win the election.

The notion that tens of millions of votes from Californians and New Yorkers become meaningless simply because a guy wins those states is just asinine. There is simply no longer a single compelling argument that can be made against one person/one vote.

mvscal can bluster all he wants, but a straight popular vote has no downside. The candidate who garners the most total votes will win every time, and a vote from Wyoming will count just as much as a vote from California. With our current system, that same vote from Wyoming can easily count for more than a vote from California, which is patently ridiculous.

You're a fucking moron. Straight up. A direct popular vote means that a small handful of cities will determine the outcome of the election every single time. That is not healthy, desirable or representative in any way, shape or form.

88, when it comes to electing a national president, no, our states aren't sovereign entities. They have no ability to do anything unilaterally. They can't decide to elect their own national president and have that election be binding. All they can do is throw away their voting power by doing so.

With current technology it's a mistake to cling to an antiquated model. Whatever purpose the Electoral College once served, that purpose is no longer evident.

Again, what downside would there be now to a straight popular vote? How is it the least bit unfair to anyone? Who would become disenfranchised by it, the way every Republican in California is disenfranchised right now, knowing their vote will not be counted in what is a national election?

mvscal wrote:A direct popular vote means that a small handful of cities will determine the outcome of the election every single time. That is not healthy, desirable or representative in any way, shape or form.

You just described exactly what's happening right now, you blithering dipshit. Win the major cities of any given state and you win the entire state, conveniently shitcanning the millions of votes that didn't go your way. Why worry about the lesser populated areas when simply winning Los Angeles and the Bay Area will hand you California's entire bushel of electoral votes?

In a straight popular vote someone's vote from Susanville would count just as much as someone's from San Francisco, which would count no more than someone's from Nome, Alaska.

That is how it should be. That is healthy, desirable and representative in every way, shape and form. That is truly representative democracy, even in a republic.

What we have now is a fucking abomination. If you live in Utah, you're looking at a map of the country and seeing maybe ten blue states. Within those blue states you see millions and millions of Republican voters whose votes aren't even worth casting because they know they cannot win. Looking at the red states, you can go ahead and cross most of them off because their electoral votes won't even come close to countering the massive number garnered merely by winning New York City, L.A., Philly, etc.

You couldn't have this shit more backwards if you tried.

Exactly. Something like that could never happen in a straight popular vote, and it's happened four times due to the existence of the Electoral College.

Lot of points here...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... al-college

http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/c ... etimes.htm

88 wrote:

Van wrote:Exactly. Something like that could never happen in a straight popular vote.

What if large populations of the people in California, New York, Florida and Texas decided they wanted one type of government, but a majority of the people in the rest of the States wanted a different type of government? Would it be fair for the people in only four states to decide the governance for the other 46? The United States is a federation of sovereign States. Each State is entitled to govern itself as determined by its People. The federal government's powers are very limited in that it can only exercise the power the States and the People gave to it in the Constitution. The Bush v. Gore result is precisely how it is supposed to work. You know, Clinton was elected President with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992...

I understand he's merely another mush-minded product of our disasterously failed system of public education. Dumbed down morons without even the faintest conception of how this country is constituted have run amok. Like other junk tuckers such as Gaysc, his opinions are based on feelings rather than any actual knowledge or understanding.

What if candidates simply didn't even bother to campaign in a large number of states, knowing that those states are hopelessly red or blue even if only by an insignificant margin?

Wait, that's exactly what happens now. Not only do candidates not bother to campaign in low-population centers of the states they do bother to visit, they completely skip entire states as a matter of course.

What if no third party candidates could ever stand a chance because the Electoral College system simply won't allow it to happen?

Yep, that would accurately describe our current situation, which is why we're constantly faced with choosing only between the lesser of two evils rather than for any real alternative.

In the end, every citizen of the United States ought to have an equal say in electing a national president. When a person can win the office despite losing the popular vote, something is very wrong. When a person can disregard entire blocks of states and large portions of other states, something is categorically wrong. When a vote in Wyoming is 2.5 times more important than a similar vote in New York, based on Electoral College delegates vs their state's population, we're approaching a farce. When the will of only a few thousand people in Florida can determine the outcome of an election while tens of millions of votes in California don't even go into the electoral hopper, it's time to nuke the whole thing and start over.

You live in a Union of States not a Union of People. If you're too fucking stupid to make or understand that distinction, you had best shut the fuck up and move along. You will never get it.

mvscal, this country was also constituted on principles such as slavery, women lacking a right to vote, and quite a few other archaic notions that we've long since corrected via Constitutional amendment. When something is clearly broken, it's the duty of the People to fix it, and they often have.

We're staring at another instance of something being clearly broken.

And no, I am not public school educated, and I suffer no lack of knowledge or understanding regarding how our system works. Because of this, I know when it's broken.

Because you're a fucking lockstep automoton you fail to see the plainly obvious, which you proved with your painfully inept "a popular vote would concentrate all the emphasis on just a few cities, and that would be bad!" cunt fart.

mvscal wrote: If you're too fucking stupid

mvscal is getting fussy

Goober McTuber wrote:Some of us see the country as being doomed in the short term. It's going to get worse over the next 4 years, regardless of who is in office. But which ever party is in office is going to take the blame, with long term consequences. I'd just as soon it was the Republicans. So I'm voting Romney.

Left Seater wrote: Just the same as there are large numbers who will vote for Obama regardless of his incompetence just due to the color of his skin.

I laugh every time I hear this take. There are just as many white people who REFUSE to vote for Bluegum Oplatelip because of the color of his skin as there are no66les who vote for him solely because he's balck.

Van wrote:mvscal, this country was also constituted on principles such as slavery, women lacking a right to vote, and quite a few other archaic notions that we've long since corrected via Constitutional amendment. When something is clearly broken, it's the duty of the People to fix it, and they often have.

We're staring at another instance of something being clearly broken.

States are not meaningless abstractions. You live in a Federal Republic not a direct Democracy. I suggest you begin your remedial education with a study of the 10th Amendment.

If you think you can effectively govern a continent spanning nation of 330 millions as if it were a 17th century New England town hall meeting, you aren't very bright to put it plainly. Federal power is vested by the States and the People. That power must be reflected in the election of national officers. The Electoral College is the only fair method of ensuring that. Obviously the more populous states wield far more power both in the Congress and the EC as clearly purposed in the Constitution yet give smaller states a voice in national affairs.

You need to uncork your head and take another run at this.

mvscal wrote: You live in a Federal Republic not a direct Democracy.

I just read about this new GOP talking point this morning. Seriously. Didn't know I'd see someone take to it so quickly.

Straight from Karl Rove's fax machine to mvscal'sposts.

Since when did basic facts become "talking points"? You have to understand that when communicating with morons one needs to explain basic facts. The Electoral College is not broken. It is functioning precisely as designed in striking the only equitable balance of power between the twin sovereigns of the States and the People.

Far from being antiquated, state governments are more important now then they have ever been before. The Federal government is going to collapse of its own weight. That is a mathematical inevitability. Demand for services is expanding and the tax base is shrinking. We're nearly out of other peoples' money.

With Van on this one. The idea that a states entire electoral count can go to one side because it got 50.1% of the vote is absolute bullshit.

Keep the EC if you wish, but people's fukking votes should count. A candidate should receive electoral votes proportional to the votes he received in that state.

The other thing I would like to see is doing away with pluralities being good enough for the win. It we do this, then have run offs, it will allow those of us who don't want to throw away a vote on a third party guy more likely to go ahead and do so, as we would quite likely have the opportunity to vote for someone else in a run off.

smackaholic wrote:Keep the EC if you wish, but people's fukking votes should count.

They do, you flat-headed clutz.

A candidate should receive electoral votes proportional to the votes he received in that state.

The various state assemblies retain the legal authority to do so at any time they wish.

The other thing I would like to see is doing away with pluralities being good enough for the win. It we do this, then have run offs,

The Electoral College obviates any such necessity. Do we really need multiple national elections? As I said, this isn't 17th century New England.

Which is why we shouldn't still be using an 18th century electoral system.

Duh.

Screwball wrote:no66les

Don't know why, but the two sixes there in place of 'g's made me laugh.

ann married mitt when she was how old?

88 wrote:

Van wrote:Exactly. Something like that could never happen in a straight popular vote.

What if large populations of the people in California, New York, Florida and Texas decided they wanted one type of government, but a majority of the people in the rest of the States wanted a different type of government? Would it be fair for the people in only four states to decide the governance for the other 46? The United States is a federation of sovereign States. Each State is entitled to govern itself as determined by its People. The federal government's powers are very limited in that it can only exercise the power the States and the People gave to it in the Constitution. The Bush v. Gore result is precisely how it is supposed to work. You know, Clinton was elected President with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992...

Let's not forget, 48 of the 50 states apportion their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. How does that not benefit the larger states?

The difference between a popular majority and an electoral majority is essentially the combined population of Georgia and North Carolina -- not nearly as large as many electoral college proponents make it out to be. Nevermind the fact that no candidate will ever receive 100% of the popular vote in the larger states.

Btw, going back to your 1992 example, Clinton still received a plurality of the popular vote that year. Bush received 38% and Perot received 19%.

smackaholic wrote:With Van on this one. The idea that a states entire electoral count can go to one side because it got 50.1% of the vote is absolute bullshit.

Keep the EC if you wish, but people's fukking votes should count. A candidate should receive electoral votes proportional to the votes he received in that state.

Two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- allow proportional voting. Votes are tallied statewide as well as within each Congressional District within the state. The overall winner of the state receives the two electoral votes representing the state's Senate seats. The votes representing the state's House seats are apportioned according to the number of Congressional Districts won by each candidate.

Obama won NE-2 in '08, which meant that Nebraska had a 4-1 electoral vote split. That was the first time in history that either state had split its electoral vote.

In principle, I would be in favor of a similar setup nationwide, but I can see at least 3 potential problems.

1. Since the least-populated states have only one Congressional District, those states would get even greater power. A win in those states would still mean 3 electoral votes, whereas a win in a Congressional District of a more heavily-populated state means only 1 electoral vote.

2. As it is, the Electoral College gives greater weight to the vote of a voter in a smaller state than to the vote of a voter in a larger state. Winner take all has been the mechanism by which the larger states have balanced that equation. I don't see the larger states agreeing to what amounts to unilateral disarmament.

3. Money. As it is, three of the four largest states -- California, Texas and New York -- are all out of play under the current system. Going to a proportional representation system means that those states, or at least portions of them, are now in play. That would make it even more expensive to run a Presidential campaign, and there's already too much money in the system as it is.

The other thing I would like to see is doing away with pluralities being good enough for the win. It we do this, then have run offs, it will allow those of us who don't want to throw away a vote on a third party guy more likely to go ahead and do so, as we would quite likely have the opportunity to vote for someone else in a run off.

An electoral plurality is not good enough. The Constitution clearly states that if no candidate gets an electoral majority, the election goes to the House of Representatives, which decides between the two highest vote-getters in the Electoral College. Of course, rather than each Representative having one vote, each state's delegation gets one vote, so that also benefits the smaller states, and it essentially becomes a race to 26.

poptart wrote:Hey, Barry may have a U.S. birth certificate, I dunno.

If he does, we haven't seen it.

The issue is, there are forged documents.

Link?

You ask about Arpaio's credibility.

Wtf kind of credibility does Barry have?

His credibility has been shot to hell on multiple fronts, and on this particular front, he was on record for 16 friggin' years as being Kenyan-born.

Link again?

Anyway, I can make this one real easy for you.

Before he was elected President, Obama was a U.S. Senator. The Constitution requires that U.S. Senators be U.S. citizens, albeit not "natural-born" U.S. citizens.

Nobody ever seriously suggested that Obama did not meet the Constitutional requirements for election to the Senate. Therefore, it must be concluded that the birthers concede his citizenship.

Of course, there are two ways to acquire citizenship: through birth, or through the naturalization process.

A person who acquires citizenship through birth is a natural-born U.S. citizen. A person who acquires citizenship through the naturalization process is a U.S. citizen, but not a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.

Just a hunch here, but my guess is that the federal government keeps records of every person who acquires citizenship via the naturalization process. At least insofar as documenting that person's citizenship, that is.

Find Obama's naturalization papers, and that proves he's not a natural-born U.S. citizen. It's that simple.

Of course, you can't do that, so you rely on bare, unsubstantiated claims that his birth certificate is forged, when the State of Hawai'i is saying nothing of the kind.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Just the same as there are large numbers who will vote for Obama regardless of his incompetence just due to the color of his skin.

I laugh every time I hear this take. There are just as many white people who REFUSE to vote for Bluegum Oplatelip because of the color of his skin as there are no66les who vote for him solely because he's balck.

You are correct, and that just reinforces the point made earlier.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Of course, you can't do that, so you rely on bare, unsubstantiated claims that his birth certificate is forged, when the State of Hawai'i is saying nothing of the kind.

This is real simple to resolve. Romney just makes an announcement that he will release additional tax returns to the media at the same time Obama releases his Birth Certificate.

Vegas would then set the odds of seeing Romney's additional tax returns somewhere around 50 to 1.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Of course, there are two ways to acquire citizenship: through birth, or through the naturalization process.

A person who acquires citizenship through birth is a natural-born U.S. citizen. A person who acquires citizenship through the naturalization process is a U.S. citizen, but not a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.

Just a hunch here, but my guess is that the federal government keeps records of every person who acquires citizenship via the naturalization process. At least insofar as documenting that person's citizenship, that is.

Find Obama's naturalization papers, and that proves he's not a natural-born U.S. citizen. It's that simple.

Of course, you can't do that, so you rely on bare, unsubstantiated claims that his birth certificate is forged, when the State of Hawai'i is saying nothing of the kind.

I choose to go the common fucking sense route.

If there was a snowballs chance in hell that his citizenship was in question, it would've been discovered and exploited in the primaries in '08. He was running against the Goddamn Clintons. You think Hilary was going to let something like that just slide? The Clintons are just as good as digging up dirt as they are covering it up.

If Obama was not a citizen, he doesn't make it to the summer of '08. Only a total fucking retard would think otherwise.