No.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

I love that sweater.

xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

Because holding torches and pitchforks are felonies and you can't get job/keep your job if you've been arrested for a felony.

fark. YOU. GOP. I hope your genitals rot.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

I feel all warm and fuzzy after reading that.



/TR 2012

And of course, they'll be sure to staff the voting places of Democratic-leaning areas with the worst staff they can find.

We know this because they do the same with voting machines: give the crap to the non-GOP zones.

But nobody worry, the GOP isn't blatantly dragging us towards a fascist state. They're just doing everything possible to APPEAR to be doing so.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

I was an election official in 2004. I was the only male working at my particular voting place, and the youngest one there by at least 20 years. Was 33 at the time. Had a bunch of elderly Republican women calling me their favorite Democrat in no time..

Corvus: How in the hell did you think posting a picture of yourself on FARK was a good idea?

Note how the knees are conveniently cropped out of the photo. Hiding a certain amount of...sharpness, perchance?

Republicans, please answer me this, how does it feel to always be on the wrong side of every social/economic/political issue? Personally, I'd find it very discouraging, but you must have some secret for dealing with it because you seem to almost enjoy it.

xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

Dude relax, American Idol just ended, so people have been tied up.

Jackson Herring: what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

anyway, I resized your picture for you free of charge:

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x400]

take THAT civic duty!

Pincy: Republicans, please answer me this, how does it feel to always be on the wrong side of every social/economic/political issue? Personally, I'd find it very discouraging, but you must have some secret for dealing with it because you seem to almost enjoy it.

American conservatives have always been on the wrong side of every issue, yet here they still are, in 2012, with a significant portion of the American public supporting and espousing their views. Kind of scary, isn't it?

kbronsito: it will never work. old people never throw anything away.

Depends.

xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

That would require exercise and emotional motivation, and these of Ohioans we're talking about. You'd have a better chance of getting a sheet of drywall to blow you.

We just had an election tossed here in Toronto (Etobicoke Centre) for mistakes made by the polling clerks.

It was a 26 vote margin, which is why the case proceeded, but this crap goes on every election. We've got to stop hiring old ladies to do the heavy lifting.

Link

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

Peter von Nostrand: xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

JLo might quit American Idol and there's probably a missing white girl.. somewhere. So people have a lot of things on their mind

Bread and circuses.

mightybaldking: We just had an election tossed here in Toronto (Etobicoke Centre) for mistakes made by the polling clerks.

It was a 26 vote margin, which is why the case proceeded, but this crap goes on every election. We've got to stop hiring old ladies to do the heavy lifting.

Link

If you're so inclined, download and read the judges decision (40 pages) It's a really interesting piece.

King Something: Peter von Nostrand: xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

JLo might quit American Idol and there's probably a missing white girl.. somewhere. So people have a lot of things on their mind

Bread and circuses.

Except they're taking away the bread from the poorest of the poor. That's such a great idea during times of economic and social upheaval.

So I guess we should officially add anti-voting to the GOP platform alongside anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-taxes, and anti-abortion.

odinsposse: So I guess we should officially add anti-voting to the GOP platform alongside anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-taxes, and anti-abortion.

They're pretty much opposed to letting normal people have any say in what happens in their lives. It's why they hate Big Government, for it might listen to the concerns of a common person, and defend them against exploitation.

Is it just me, or did that article take for farking ever to get around to the point, and then didn't make it all that cleary.

PonceAlyosha: King Something: Peter von Nostrand: xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

JLo might quit American Idol and there's probably a missing white girl.. somewhere. So people have a lot of things on their mind

Bread and circuses.

Except they're taking away the bread from the poorest of the poor. That's such a great idea during times of economic and social upheaval.

I know. First-hand experience. SS and VA disability claims move at the speed of government.

On top of that, this year's American Idol is about to finish, Facebook will go the way of Myspace once its stock tanks, and the only good summer movies this year are either already in theaters (Avengers) or will be this weekend (MIB 3).

We're dangerously close to the inevitable "Let them eat cake!" moment. And once that moment happens, things will get "interesting" within an hour.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

I would hit it in the booth.

King Something: Peter von Nostrand: xanadian: Why aren't there throngs of people in the streets waving torches and pitchforks?

JLo might quit American Idol and there's probably a missing white girl.. somewhere. So people have a lot of things on their mind

Bread and circuses.

You know, the Romans got THEIR bread and circuses for free. I think we're getting ripped off.

This will all be better once we introduce an electronic device to verify your identity. It will be produced by good, wholesome, American, Republican-owned manufacturers. Move along, nothing to see citizen.

King Something: the only good summer movies this year are either already in theaters (Avengers) or will be this weekend (MIB 3).

Them's fighting words. I'm surprised that there was anyone besides Will Smith waiting for this movie to be made.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.



/DemocracyKaren is tired

Well hello there.

/I'd vote however you told me.
//Is considering changing my registration to Libertarian.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

Didn't DeMint and friends just denounce TR for his fondness of government regulation?...

what_now: Because People in power are Stupid: You would stretch it out.

(Don't let her borrow clothes)

that's....really mean.

Yeah, BPIPAS seems to think that I'm a manhater or something. They mad.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

Bully good show I say!

you have to go back more than a century-to the post-Reconstruction era, when Southern states passed a host of Jim Crow voting laws and Northern states targeted immigrants and the poor."

That's what "Taking Our Country Back" is all about. The idea is that the proper rulers (white, rural, working class) are being usurped by newcomers and that they must be stopped.

The fact that voter fraud rarely happens is irrelevant. It's fear-based.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

SAW would be my weapon of choice as well, I've got a soft spot in my heart for it.

Old ladies are forgetful. Thankfully, Diebold voting machines can double-check their work.

JRoo: It's super funny because the only time I ever heard a legitimate case of voter fraud influencing an important election was when Bush was elected in 2000.

Which was accomplished by throwing away ballots and using a judge to appoint the person who didn't win the actual majority vote.

Voter fraud != election fraud.

There are far more documented cases of the latter.

EIP if people want specifics, on the phone

Not Verna and Della Eleanor! They're notorious cheats at our Wednesday bridge game.

Stay classy, republicans.

As opposed to the Waukesha WI County Clerk who "mysteriously" lost 14,000 votes in a recent election. And, amazingly, she still has that job. That should be of far more concern than a few voting workers that may have forgotten their coffee.

So glad my county is all mail-in...

/...unless they are in the box at the Library
//scary

85yo ladies haz mad hax0r skillz? Sorry, they automated my disenfranchisement years ago.

Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

"Thrown out"? That's just ridiculous.

Last time I looked, Slate was left of center......so, an unreliable news source.

"Good" is a subjective term. MIB 3 might not be the next Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane, but compared to most of the rest of what's in theaters this summer?

Avengers doesn't count as a "summer" movie because it was released in theaters before Memorial Day weekend. And as far as I can tell, MIB 3 is the only movie opening this weekend that looks like it'll be better (or at least have a better concept for the basis of a movie) than Battleship.

Anyway, my point was that the circus is about to be cancelled.

/Abe Lincoln (6/22), Spider-Man (7/3) and Dark Knight Rises (7/20) will likely be great, and definitely better than MIB 3, but there's a slight (non-zero) chance things will have gotten "interesting" by the time they're released
//for the sake of comparison, American Idol ended yesterday (I just found out 10 seconds ago) and the Wisconsin recall election is in twelve days (6/5)
///plenty of time in the 2 and a half weeks between the recall and the release of ALVH for things to go pear-shaped

Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Popular vote you say? You're killing us here ... Really, my frontal lobe got suicidal just reading your drivel.

Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Maybe you should have Zombie Reagan run again. . .

/It's a shame a Republican can't get a single vote in the state-wide election in California. . .

Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Just because there are more Democrats in SF and LA which makes your Republican vote in Chickenfark, CA worthless doesn't mean it's being thrown away.

Quit your biatching.

Corvus: what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

How in the hell did you think posting a picture of yourself on FARK was a good idea?

Fark and good idea in the same sentence?

impliedfacepalm.jpg

What's the use even trying anymore. Can we just get right to the class war and get it over with?

HighOnCraic: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Maybe you should have Zombie Reagan run again. . .

/It's a shame a Republican can't get a single vote in the state-wide election in California. . .

The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

Also, no thanks on zombie Reagan. Not a republican myself.

Ned Stark: HighOnCraic: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

Maybe you should have Zombie Reagan run again. . .

/It's a shame a Republican can't get a single vote in the state-wide election in California. . .

The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

Also, no thanks on zombie Reagan. Not a republican myself.

But he did win California a couple of times, didn't he?

Would you consider Democrats in Utah to be disenfranchised as well?

I_Am_Weasel: The number of people who will unable to vote because of the various measures of those few patriotic Republicans will be insignificant compared to the illegal voters who will not get their opportunity to subvert democracy.

They need to keep up by the good work and no be dissuaded by arguments that democracy is better served by encouraging participation, not discouraging. Besides who are people like me to point that out, they invented democracy, after all. They also fully understand the idea that you cannot have freedom if it doesn't benefit you personally.

yeah better if we prevent 1000 citizens from voting if it stops one dirty illegal from doing so... to its illogical conclusion, we should prevent everyone except those that agree from voting, China and Russia are probably a role models to them...

birchman: What's the use even trying anymore. Can we just get right to the class war Civil War II: Electoral Boogaloo and get it over with?

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

I guess you are against Federalism and state's rights?

I'm against the electoral college for sure. States rights is a funny question. In principle, yeah government should be seperated from the governed by as few degrees as possible but in practice seems to mostly mean *nudge nudge wink wink* let's hang a darkie, or these days a gay.

Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Ned Stark: Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Maybe if Republicans stopped whining about Hollywood elitists or Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco values," they might have a chance to win in California.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

It would be great for voters rights, which is exactly why the GOP would be against it. Too easy for democrats to vote...

This just in, we Ohioans are all a bunch of big jackasses who end up screwing the rest of the country.
I'd encourage the entire state to commit suicide to save the country, but I don't have the guts to kill myself.

The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

In Australia, elections are mandatory and they have barbeques or "sausage sizzles" at the polling places

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

In the United States, yes. This is a fact of our corrupt voting system, and is one of the many sins we Americans are responsible for.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

I guess you are against Federalism and state's rights?

I'm against the electoral college for sure. States rights is a funny question. In principle, yeah government should be seperated from the governed by as few degrees as possible but in practice seems to mostly mean *nudge nudge wink wink* let's hang a darkie, or these days a gay.

So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Wit now? Please rephrase your outrage. I think you lost a verb somewhere.

Corvus: So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Newsflash: You can tell who is racist by their starting a statement "I'm not racist..."

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Your vote counted. You were voting on those 7 electors. You farking lost. Get over it. Want your vote to "count"? Convince enough of your fellow voters that voting your way is better.

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

If the alternative is a WORSE system then it would be stupid to do switch. You think being different makes it better. That is just not true.

You have a belief that just because one system has a flaw doing things another way must be better. That is not true at all. It's a simpleton mind set to think that way.

Still really not following you. The point ofan election is either to reflect the will of the people, or to pretend too.

Unless you wanna play pretend, popular vote for the president>>>>voting for member of some pointless intermidiary electoral body.

I want to see anyone on the Right come in here and defend ANY of these measures, with the bullshiat filter turned off. Tell us how they will TRULY wipe out voter fraud without disenfranchising any voters.

The clock is ticking...

birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

He does know that Democrats won the popular vote in California too right?

Is he just butthurt over the fact that San Francisco and LA are heavily Democratic and therefore drowns out his Republican vote?

He needs to face it, unless he throws out all the votes from Democrats, Republicans won't win in CA on a presidential level regardless of whatever convoluted proposal he suggests.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Your vote counted. You were voting on those 7 electors. You farking lost. Get over it. Want your vote to "count"? Convince enough of your fellow voters that voting your way is better.

This bears repeating.
If your vote got invalidated because you were too lazy to get enough people to vote your way, you deserve the consequences. If you don't like it, work to change the system. Either way, take responsibility for your actions, or lack thereof.

birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

Ned Stark: birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

Then why haven't you started a campaign to change it, and why is it not successfully changed by now? The only reason you'd be biatching is because it's still the same, and the only reason for that is that you were too lazy to change it. It's the same principle as biatching when you don't vote, you lose that right because you didn't bother or try hard enough.

Ned Stark: birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

OK, well you know that means that Democrats in red states will get votes too right? And that the number of electoral votes for each state is based on population?

Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

It really is sad to see what pathetic lows this country has come to in terms of knowledge of the Constitution.


The fact that the filthy peasants think they have a right to vote is nauseating.

SphericalTime: Lando Lincoln: Republicans must be so proud to be part of the party that does whatever it can to dissuade Americans from voting.

So goddamn patriotic it makes my heart ache.

Republicans: If you don't vote for them, then you shouldn't get the vote. USA, USA, USA!

For our Freedoms or whatever.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

I can make the same argument for both branches of Congress too, that doesn't mean that I think that every single bill should be put up for a national popular vote.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

I guess you are against Federalism and state's rights?

I'm against the electoral college for sure. States rights is a funny question. In principle, yeah government should be seperated from the governed by as few degrees as possible but in practice seems to mostly mean *nudge nudge wink wink* let's hang a darkie, or these days a gay.

So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Wit now? Please rephrase your outrage. I think you lost a verb somewhere.

So you believe then all laws for federal election would need to be done at the federal level? No states could make laws based for federal elections anymore?

Basically we would remove a huge portion of this country being a federalism because states would no longer be responsible for how their own representation are elected? You are ok with that?

No me pointing out you haven't thought through your ideas isn't "outrage" its more amusement.

Oh, yes then. "states rights" is a pretty broad term dude, it was unclear what you meant.

Federal elections should have federal laws.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Ok fine. Are you going to answer the previous question I asked you on how your system would actually work or are you going to keep ignoring them?

A straight popular vote for the president is hardly difficult to understand.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Wouldn't they first be shocked that somehow women and minorities have been given the right to vote?

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

The only reason any state is "safe" is that one of the national parties represents the wishes of significant majority of the people of that state. When they cease to do so, that state either becomes a toss up or switches to being "safe" for the other party.

California is a great example of this. Until 1992 the Republicans had a majority of voters in California convinced that they best represented their interests, so the States electors wen to the Republican candidate for President. From 1992 until the present the Republicans have failed to do so. If the republicans can convince a majority that they again will best represent their interests, the State will no longer be "safe".

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Ok fine. Are you going to answer the previous question I asked you on how your system would actually work or are you going to keep ignoring them?

A straight popular vote for the president is hardly difficult to understand.

Why stop at just the President? He's not the only one that affects federal policy. Take this to the logical conclusion dude, it gets out of control really quickly.

Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

Ned Stark: Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

The point is that CA is not a safe state because of the Electoral College, it's a safe state because a majority of the state already votes Democrat.

birchman: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

I can make the same argument for both branches of Congress too, that doesn't mean that I think that every single bill should be put up for a national popular vote.

Cool strawman bro!

To expand on my last point:

Going to a popular vote system will not make CA that much more of a competitive state on a Presidential level and will definitely not result in folks like Romney and Obama visiting the state that much more often than they currently do.

You seem to think going to a popular vote would make CA more of a swing state and it's just not the case.

Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

The point is that CA is not a safe state because of the Electoral College, it's a safe state because a majority of the state already votes Democrat.

Yes, and? *my* point is being In a "safe state" won't fark you without the EC

Mrtraveler01: To expand on my last point:

Going to a popular vote system will not make CA that much more of a competitive state on a Presidential level and will definitely not result in folks like Romney and Obama visiting the state that much more often than they currently do.

You seem to think going to a popular vote would make CA more of a swing state and it's just not the case.

He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Mrtraveler01: To expand on my last point:

Going to a popular vote system will not make CA that much more of a competitive state on a Presidential level and will definitely not result in folks like Romney and Obama visiting the state that much more often than they currently do.

You seem to think going to a popular vote would make CA more of a swing state and it's just not the case.

Haven't said a damn word about California being more of a swing state. More than half my posts mentioning the place are about the DEMOCRATS there being under represented.

Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

Then why canpaign at all?

Philip Francis Queeg: They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

You can't assume that conclusion. Because candidates would change the way they campaign if the electoral college didn't exist. The opposing candidate's stance on something in an election is dependent upon who will vote for them. Take away the electoral college, that candidate now has to try to please those places where there are lots of voters and their stances have to evolve. If their stance evolve they'll look more pleasing to the voters in large cities.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

Marry me.

What's new? The GOP is consistently on the side of suppressing the vote. They're assholes. It's what they do.

Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

You can't assume that conclusion. Because candidates would change the way they campaign if the electoral college didn't exist. The opposing candidate's stance on something in an election is dependent upon who will vote for them. Take away the electoral college, that candidate now has to try to please those places where there are lots of voters and their stances have to evolve. If their stance evolve they'll look more pleasing to the voters in large cities.


Is your support for eliminating the electoral college based entirely on your supposition that only those who live in large urban areas will be courted and that the concerns of rural voters will be largely ignored?

Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

The concentrations of swing voters will be in the same spots.

Pincy: Republicans, please answer me this, how does it feel to always be on the wrong side of every social/economic/political issue? Personally, I'd find it very discouraging, but you must have some secret for dealing with it because you seem to almost enjoy it.

They think it's punk rock and anti-establishment

Philip Francis Queeg: evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

The concentrations of swing voters will be in the same spots.

Isn't this common sense? The fact that people aren't getting this makes my head hurt.

what_now: thomps: i'm sorry, i can't really tell what's going on in that pic, can you please repost it in a larger size?

I haven't the foggiest idea how to change the size of a picture.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 640x480]

That may be the funniest pic I've seen all day.

Philip Francis Queeg: evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

The concentrations of swing voters will be in the same spots.

There'll be more concentrations of swing voters, not just those that happen to encompass an entire state.

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

California, the state you live in has awesome national power because of this policy. You want some loser to taint the vote so Cali ends up a big wash and the GOP can finally laugh while the state descends into chaos.

Voting is not about sending a message, it's about shaping public policy. Cali has a lot of power over the executive, which gets a lot accomplished. Whether you agree with this policy right now, you want your state to be a powerful influence on the national stage. Because you live there!

Best part: you don't even have to show up to vote, liberals, who are generally pragmatic policy-makers will continue making your state, and by extension America, better without any help from you at all! West-coast liberals are what people from other countries think of when they think of "the good guys" in America.

/much love for California liberals
/the richer and more boring, the better

evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

Eh, I'd love to do away with the electoral college relic if only for one thing, Super Delegates. You know the one man or woman who's vote is worth more? We know you wanted X but the powers that be in the party system want Y so our Super Delegate will make sure the "vote" goes the right way.-bleh.

Given that Diebold has my part of Ohio, there'd be no need to throw away any stray votes. Anyone interested in cheating just syncs the official database to reflect the desired vote tabulation, paper trail be damned. It's OK by ALEC's own standards, since "only Democrats commit election fraud" is in play when these pre-filled laws are ramrodded down pre-approved legislators; the only part largely uncontrolled by ALEC is the public - which is left in the dark as long as possible.

Lando Lincoln:
Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 1A) Allow him full immunity and protection from prosecution in his actions
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

...on the Walker regime. Then repeat for every single pattern-legislation state until ALEC is a cross-section of dead or resigned people.



/Registered Ohio Republican
//Deeply against ALEC for its non-conservative leanings
///There's nothing conservative about SB5, RTW, JobsOhio, the proposed turnpike privatization,
////or all the other cronyism that Kasich has practiced since he assumed office in Westerville

PsiChick: what_now: thomps: i'm sorry, i can't really tell what's going on in that pic, can you please repost it in a larger size?

I haven't the foggiest idea how to change the size of a picture.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 640x480]

That may be the funniest pic I've seen all day.

You must not have much internet time during the day. I am sad for you now.

Lando Lincoln:
Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2 1) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3 2) Let him go to town

Teddy wouldn't need no gun. He'd wade into the middle of the crowd at a Teabagger rally and go Haggar on everyone.

mccallcl: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

California, the state you live in has awesome national power because of this policy. You want some loser to taint the vote so Cali ends up a big wash and the GOP can finally laugh while the state descends into chaos.

Voting is not about sending a message, it's about shaping public policy. Cali has a lot of power over the executive, which gets a lot accomplished. Whether you agree with this policy right now, you want your state to be a powerful influence on the national stage. Because you live there!

Best part: you don't even have to show up to vote, liberals, who are generally pragmatic policy-makers will continue making your state, and by extension America, better without any help from you at all! West-coast liberals are what people from other countries think of when they think of "th ...

i aint from cali, mate.

The GOP has become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Only party approved citizens may vote. Those citizens may vote for anyone they like provided the individual is a member of the Communist Party.

Zombie Butler: evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

Eh, I'd love to do away with the electoral college relic if only for one thing, Super Delegates. You know the one man or woman who's vote is worth more? We know you wanted X but the powers that be in the party system want Y so our Super Delegate will make sure the "vote" goes the right way.-bleh.

How would removing the EC stop the parties from having super-delegates?

qorkfiend: Zombie Butler: evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

Eh, I'd love to do away with the electoral college relic if only for one thing, Super Delegates. You know the one man or woman who's vote is worth more? We know you wanted X but the powers that be in the party system want Y so our Super Delegate will make sure the "vote" goes the right way.-bleh.

How would removing the EC stop the parties from having super-delegates?

More importantly, what the hell does a primary funtion have to do with the general election?

I have the choice of voting via absentee mail-in ballot or motorvating my pudgy cat ass to my officially and correctly designated polling place, which I carefully re-verify every time I go vote.

No one f*cks with my vote but ME.

Speaker2Animals: sethstorm: /Registered Ohio Republican
//Deeply against ALEC for its non-conservative leanings
///There's nothing conservative about SB5, RTW, JobsOhio, the proposed turnpike privatization,
////or all the other cronyism that Kasich has practiced since he assumed office in Westerville

Or the giveaway water bill, or giveaway drilling bill or the effort to head off the balloting changes referendum, or the complete f*cking failure for more than a decade to fix the school funding system, despite four Supreme Court rulings.

/Former registered Republican

While the Kasich folks would point towards Prisonergate and overplay Strickland's inaction to keep NCR in Ohio**. In addition, you forgot the whole thing about Kasich paying a company to move from one part of Ohio to another, with the empty threat of moving out. The only things he's done right is admit when his referendum was solidly beaten and for him to continually blunder in policy where others might in speech.

I'd rather do my part to ensure Ohio's non-extremism stays that way. It worked well enough in 1958 to keep things like RTW away for a couple of generations; only vigilance will keep it from happening again (which it is so far, evidenced by the solid defeat of SB5). Once I have enough escape velocity, then I can leave Ohio for good.


** - This was more or less settled in the late Celeste/early-mid Voinovich years - with the acquisition (and gutting of) NCR by AT&T. It wasn't a case of if they'd move to Georgia, but a case of when the next exodus would happen. The only failure by Strickland was not knowing how far Ohio had to go to keep 125 years of history from walking out the door.

Corvus: what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

How in the hell did you think posting a picture of yourself on FARK was a good idea?

Just because you and I are abject cowards, that doesn't mean she has to follow suit.

magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

And that was one president too many. I think a lot of us are interested in ideas to prevent that happening again.

The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

I think everyone should be automatically registered at 18. At the very least, when young men register for the G-d forsaken draft, that should double as their voting registry some damned way.

Ned Stark:

How would moving to a national popular vote solve the "disenfranchisement" problem?

Mrtraveler01: The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

In Australia, elections are mandatory and they have barbeques or "sausage sizzles" at the polling places

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 375x500]

Why can't we be more like Australia? It's like we're the dimwitted child at the family reunion. All the Aunts and Uncles are struggling to say something nice and we've got drool on our chins.

Fine. You want to re-fight the Civil Rights movement again? OK. You lost last time - AT THE END OF THE NINETEEN FIFTIES. You REALLY think you're going to win NOW?
Righties are stupid.

Richard Roma: Lando Lincoln:
Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2 1) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3 2) Let him go to town

Teddy wouldn't need no gun. He'd wade into the middle of the crowd at a Teabagger rally and go Haggar on everyone.

[www.fightersgeneration.com image 119x102]

With that amusing Haggar animated gif and the epicness that is TR, here's a soundtrack to go with it.

/Sega CD Final Fight was a hidden treasure of game music

California signed on to NPVIC last August. I could see it going into effect by 2020, since it's about halfway there already.

Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

I feel compelled to mention that we vote on more offices than President. Some of those even make a bigger difference in our day-to-day lives (Congress, governors, State legislators).

Magorn: If you are under any illusions that Voter-ID laws are about anything other than naked voter supression you need to look no further than VA, where the Republican governor (though an arcane legistlative process we have here) sent back the Voter-ID bill to the Legislature with the very reasonable amendment that in cases where voters don't have, ID election officials would be able to instead compare the signature already on file from the person's voter registration card, with the one on the affidavit they sign to get a ballot. If they match, the vote is accepted and no ID is needed.

The measure was OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by the legislature, both houses of which are controlled by his own party

Requiring a matching address on the ID is (another) dead giveaway that it's all about voter suppression. The address you give DMV isn't any more "secure" or verified than the address you rattle off at the polls. But requiring a match is a great way to keep college students, and people who move often (=poor) from voting.

Also, in TFA, one of the suppression measures they mention (forbidding poll workers from directing people to the proper precinct if they show up at the wrong one) doesn't even PRETEND to be about stopping fraud.

Gaseous Anomaly: Requiring a matching address on the ID is (another) dead giveaway that it's all about voter suppression. The address you give DMV isn't any more "secure" or verified than the address you rattle off at the polls. But requiring a match is a great way to keep college students, and people who move often (=poor) from voting.

Also, in TFA, one of the suppression measures they mention (forbidding poll workers from directing people to the proper precinct if they show up at the wrong one) doesn't even PRETEND to be about stopping fraud.


THIS.

Benni K Rok: qorkfiend: Zombie Butler: evil saltine: Philip Francis Queeg: Guidette Frankentits: Philip Francis Queeg: He thinks that if the electoral college is eliminated every candidate will come visit him in his living room to see what policies they must support to get his personal vote.

Which is wrong because the candidates will just campaign in
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix , San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
Which is the way it should be because politics is about governing people, not land and sparsely populated areas.

They won't campaign in most of those cities any more than they do now because the populations in those cities aren't going to be a single bit more or less likely to vote for a candidate whether the electoral college exists or not.

They'd campaign differently because they'd have to pick up individual votes nationwide rather than just a few swing states.

Eh, I'd love to do away with the electoral college relic if only for one thing, Super Delegates. You know the one man or woman who's vote is worth more? We know you wanted X but the powers that be in the party system want Y so our Super Delegate will make sure the "vote" goes the right way.-bleh.

How would removing the EC stop the parties from having super-delegates?

More importantly, what the hell does a primary funtion have to do with the general election?

Ah you have a point.quork it wouldn't. I think I was more riffing on how undemocratic the electoral college is and how antiquated it is. Much akin to how I feel about our two party system. Your vote actually counts for less of a vote for president if you live in a populous state because of the way the delegates are are assigned for the EC. Much like the super delegates nullifying "ordinary" people's vote. Should've been clearer.

Benni- um the undemocratic selection of our presidential candidate has Everything to do with the general but not the EC mea culpa.

The most frequent argument I see for keeping the EC "it's working why fix it". Well, frankly, I don't think it's working. I see it as nullifying our choices and making our voting process less than democratic than it could be, especially in this age of unbridled (pun intended) communications. It's part of the constitution however, so it would take action by those parties that directly benefit from the EC remaining in place to rectify it. I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime. One can always hope.

/long f'ing day

What we need is an online database where you can check whether your vote, personally, was actually counted. No one really gets up in arms if they think that someone's vote was thrown out but I bet there would be serious trouble if individual people found out that their own vote was tossed.

Chameleon: What we need is an online database where you can check whether your vote, personally, was actually counted. No one really gets up in arms if they think that someone's vote was thrown out but I bet there would be serious trouble if individual people found out that their own vote was tossed.

I know North Carolina has it set up to where you can do just that. I can go onto the site, and check to see when I voted, where I voted, and how I voted in any past election.

A little late to the party here, but just wanted to say the GOP have been attempting to change voting laws any time they even get an inkling that it might favor them in recent years.

okay the GOP are even more corrupt then i realized, it's obvious they know the cannot win if they play it fair,.

Lenny_da_Hog 2012-05-24 09:36:04 PM

Kittypie070: Beer for the falcon!

Like hell.

He ate my sister. AND NOT IN THE GOOD WAY.

Mew??

mccallcl: California, the state you live in has awesome national power because of this policy. You want some loser to taint the vote so Cali ends up a big wash and the GOP can finally laugh while the state descends into chaos.

Voting is not about sending a message, it's about shaping public policy. Cali has a lot of power over the executive, which gets a lot accomplished. Whether you agree with this policy right now, you want your state to be a powerful influence on the national stage. Because you live there!

Best part: you don't even have to show up to vote, liberals, who are generally pragmatic policy-makers will continue making your state, and by extension America, better without any help from you at all! West-coast liberals are what people from other countries think of when they think of "the good guys" in America.

/much love for California liberals
/the richer and more boring, the better



Come be rich and liberal with us!!!

/Unfortunately I am only entry level upper middle class...
//I'm working on rich...

Fortunately I can kick BOTH their asses.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

I love this post. He was not a fan of conservatives.

Jackson Herring: what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired


I was actually going to say something about how you'd be amused at this, but it's against the rules to mention a Farker before they post in the thread.

Well, shiat. No wonder why I get banned so much.

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Maine and Nevada already use the "Congressional District Method" to allow for what you're describing, because voters there decided to make the change in '72 and '92 respectively. Voters in California have not chosen to do so.

The problem is, you're suggesting that California change its system based on a trend of Democratic voting that began in 1992, while ignoring the fact that Republican presidential candidates won there in '88, '84, '80, '76, '72, and '68. You're presuming that the system is unfair because Californians don't vote for Republican presidential candidates anymore, but if you look at the larger trend, it's mainly because the Republicans became more conservative on many issues, while the Democrats became more liberal.



Link

The sort of Republican that can win statewide in California (like Arnold, and that's why I mentioned him in an earlier post) would more than likely be too moderate to be supported by the base in the presidential primaries. Many states are solidly Republican or solidly Democratic because of issues totally unrelated to the electoral college. New York is another safe state for Democrats in presidential elections, but it managed to elect a Republican governor for three straight terms, starting in the late 90s. But a guy like Pataki, who's pro-choice, wouldn't stand a chance in the Republican primaries, so New Yorkers would never get the chance to consider a Republican president that's compatible with their views (see also New York City mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg--popular enough to win in a liberal city, but will never be nominated by the GOP).

There's another example... Hmmm... Oh yeah, Mitt Romney, who won in a "safe" Democratic state because his positions on social issues were (at the time) compatible with voters in Massachusetts. Last I heard, he's managed to get the GOP nomination mainly by reversing himself on all the things he supported as governor. You want to make the "safe" states "unsafe"? Try nominating less polarizing candidates.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: getting a sheet of drywall to blow you.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

How YOU doin'?

As a poll worker I have observed that most people who come in to the wrong place to vote are too lazy to go to the correct one.

archichris: Gyrfalcon: Kittypie070: I have the choice of voting via absentee mail-in ballot or motorvating my pudgy cat ass to my officially and correctly designated polling place, which I carefully re-verify every time I go vote.

No one f*cks with my vote but ME.

I fly in with my ballot clenched in my talons and drop it into the box whilst striking at the poll workers with my razor-sharp beak.

Nobody messes with a falcon.

In my experience working the polls if your goal is to prevent your ballot from interference by the democrat judge, all you had to do was sit it down inches from her maximum reach. No one is going to make that fat tub of goo move an extra inch, not even to spoil ron pauls ballot. Seriously, The democrat half of the team didnt move from their chairs except to pee for 12 hours. Well not 12, they were late getting there and immediately had to go home for another hour for an emergency, but the 10 hours they were actually there they just sat and threatened to write other workers up for complaining about it. Whereas the republican judge knew the plot to every doctor who episode ever. So at least we had something to talk about.

In NC we must remain in one another's presence the whole day, except bathroom breaks. There's no arriving late nor leaving early.

Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

No, that just means voter suppression becomes critical in swing states, and voters in strongly D or R states are entirely irrelevant to the entire election process regardless and thus voting fraud in that state doesn't matter. Saying California shouldn't take part in Presidential elections (effectively, at least until the state ever gets close enough it might swing between parties) to avoid the chance of voter suppression in California seems a pretty weird argument.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Step 1) Introduce Teddy Roosevelt to the M249 light machine gun
Step 2) Give him a run-down of what the modern GOP has been doing for the past 30 years
Step 3) Let him go to town

This. This is the best idea. Ever.

HighOnCraic: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Maine and Nevada already use the "Congressional District Method" to allow for what you're describing, because voters there decided to make the change in '72 and '92 respectively. Voters in California have not chosen to do so.

The problem is, you're suggesting that California change its system based on a trend of Democratic voting that began in 1992, while ignoring the fact that Republican presidential candidates won there in '88, '84, '80, '76, '72, and '68. You're presuming that the system is unfair because Californians don't vote for Republican presidential candidates anymore, but if you look at the larger trend, it's mainly because the Republicans became more conservative on many issues, while the Democrats became more liberal.



Link

The sort of Republican that can win statewide in California (like Arnold, and that's why I mentioned him in an earlier post) would more than likely be too moderate to be supported by the base in the presidential primaries. Many states are solidly Republican or solidly Democratic because of issues totally unrelated to the electoral college. New York is another safe state for Democrats in presidential elections, but it managed to elect a Republican governor for three straight terms, starting in the late 90s. But a guy like Pataki, who's pro-choice, wouldn't stand a chance in the Republican primaries, so New Yorkers would never get the chance to consider a Republican president that's compatible with their views (see also New York City mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg--popular enough to win in a liberal city, but will never be nominated by the GOP).

There's another example... Hmmm... Oh yeah, Mitt Romney, who won in a "safe" Democratic state because his positions on social issues were (at the time) compatible with voters in Massachusetts. Last I heard, he's managed to get the GOP nomination mainly by reversing himself on all the things he supported as governor. You want to make the "safe" states "unsafe"? Try nominating less polarizing candidates.

I don't have an image macro derisive enough for how stupid you are. Not only have you missed the point you missed 10+ posts elaborating on the point for the others who missed it.

Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

Honestly, I'm with him on this one. The Electoral College was designed to prevent particular states from dominating the Presidential vote, and it's a failure at this. Instead of California and Texas dominating, Ohio and Florida do.At least if we go to the popular vote, the states whose interests are paramount will actually be the ones with the most people in them.

what_now: Excuse me, Submitter, but we aren't all 85.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x858]

/DemocracyKaren is tired

What country does democracykaren live in? The USA isn't a democracy.

HeartBurnKid: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

Honestly, I'm with him on this one. The Electoral College was designed to prevent particular states from dominating the Presidential vote, and it's a failure at this. Instead of California and Texas dominating, Ohio and Florida do.At least if we go to the popular vote, the states whose interests are paramount will actually be the ones with the most people in them.

I will add, though, that any one state enacting this change and going to proportional representation will only serve to dilute its own power. That's why it needs to happen across all states at once. And that's why I'm a supporter of the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

Lionel Mandrake: Hate Democracy?

Vote GOP!!

Love democracy? Go to a country that is actually a democracy!

Greece can use some fries with that.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

You know that the founding fathers only allowed land owners to vote, right? The reason why we are in a representative republic and not a democracy is because the founding fathers believed the average person is stupid and shouldn't have a say in government. The electoral college can vote for whoever they want, even if the people voted 100% for one guy.

odinsposse: So I guess we should officially add anti-voting to the GOP platform alongside anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-taxes, and anti-abortion.

Yeah. Dead people and non citizens shouldn't vote.

This is a good follow up to the article the other day about how over 50,000 dead people voted in Florida and over 200,000 non-citizens.

That'd be 12.5 million invalid voters nationwide.

Bullseyed: Lionel Mandrake: Hate Democracy?

Vote GOP!!

Love democracy? Go to a country that is actually a democracy!

Greece can use some fries with that.

Greece is a parliamentary republic...

Bullseyed: This is a good follow up to the article the other day about how over 50,000 dead people voted in Florida and over 200,000 non-citizens.

That'd be 12.5 million invalid voters nationwide.

So "up to" now equals "over" and "eligible to" now equals "actually voted"

Holy shiat, dude, you could work for Fox Spews making stretches like that.

Bucky Katt: FTA: another provision would bar poll workers from helping voters find the correct precinct if they showed up at the wrong place.

My polling place keeps getting moved even though my house is still in the same place. In 2010, it got moved to the other side of town. I had to drive past several polling places to get there. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

And this is a perfect example of why this law would be bullshiat and pisses me right off. I am the chief inspector for a polling place in my village, and we do everything we can to help people be able to vote. Even though I tend to vote D, and this place votes heavily R, I will whatever it takes to make sure people can vote legitimately and correctly to have their vote count.

prickly pete v2: Bucky Katt: FTA: another provision would bar poll workers from helping voters find the correct precinct if they showed up at the wrong place.

My polling place keeps getting moved even though my house is still in the same place. In 2010, it got moved to the other side of town. I had to drive past several polling places to get there. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

And this is a perfect example of why this law would be bullshiat and pisses me right off. I am the chief inspector for a polling place in my village, and we do everything we can to help people be able to vote. Even though I tend to vote D, and this place votes heavily R, I will whatever it takes to make sure people can vote legitimately and correctly to have their vote count.

You mean voting is the important part, not who wins? The hell you say!