When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

LordZorch: When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

Those were "Southern Democrats" which in fact are far-right republicans and Strom Thurmond pretty much started the final shift of the racist right to move from Democratic votes to Republican. It didn't start there though .. To understand where this rift happened and how there is a great book called Team of Rivals which is about Lincoln's presidency but doesn't focus on the president wholly. It's a great read for someone trying to figure out how back-door politics works and explains why Lincoln was a Republican. I've also read Grants, FDRs, Ikes, Reagan, and Bush's biographys. All good reads even if you don't agree with policies.

This is why the Electoral College needs to DIAF. Yeah, these states are developing pockets of Democratic voters, but no way will Obama, or any other Democratic candidate in the foreseeable future, carry the state as a whole, so those votes are getting flushed down the shiatter.

And I hate the "If there's no electoral college, small states get neglected!" argument. As it is now, a candidate can write off a state they know they can't win: Obama can scratch off Georgia, say, and Romney can forget about California. But if the candidates have to hunt and scratch for every vote everywhere to win, they have to pay attention to the country as a whole, including places they may find irrelevant under the current system.

GAT_00: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

GAT_00: And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

I used to get a kick of going home in uniform and being the recipient of the adulation of the militaristic nationalists, only to blow their minds with my relatively liberal views. I don't do that at all any more (haven't for years)--it's just too damned dangerous these days.

jake_lex: This is why the Electoral College needs to DIAF. Yeah, these states are developing pockets of Democratic voters, but no way will Obama, or any other Democratic candidate in the foreseeable future, carry the state as a whole, so those votes are getting flushed down the shiatter.

And I hate the "If there's no electoral college, small states get neglected!" argument. As it is now, a candidate can write off a state they know they can't win: Obama can scratch off Georgia, say, and Romney can forget about California. But if the candidates have to hunt and scratch for every vote everywhere to win, they have to pay attention to the country as a whole, including places they may find irrelevant under the current system.

Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

No, a better system is an electoral college system that isn't all-or-nothing. Make it something like a plurality win is a 60-40 split, 50.1% is 70-30, win by more than 5%, 80-20, by more than 8%, 90-10, and more than 10%, you get all the votes. That way even if you're polling 8 points down in Alabama, you can still win electoral votes by campaigning there if you can swing the election a point in your favor. It makes electoral math a lot more dynamic, and no state is totally off-limits.

nmrsnr: Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.
I fail to see why a one million voter gap in California shouldn't count more than a 500,000 voter gap in Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana.

No, a better system is an electoral college system that isn't all-or-nothing. Make it something like a plurality win is a 60-40 split, 50.1% is 70-30, win by more than 5%, 80-20, by more than 8%, 90-10, and more than 10%, you get all the votes. That way even if you're polling 8 points down in Alabama, you can still win electoral votes by campaigning there if you can swing the election a point in your favor. It makes electoral math a lot more dynamic, and no state is totally off-limits.
This is neither a sporting event nor a farking game show, and our "scoring system" shouldn't act like it is. I could understand a universal adoption of proportionally awarding electoral votes (a single state doing so is suicidal towards its influence, see "Coloradans Against a Really Dumb Idea", 2004), but your system sounds and is retarded.

GAT_00: I go to school 5 minutes from a church that was shot up by someone wanting to kill liberals, openly proclaiming that. You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

*checks profile*

Ah. Tennessee. Yeah.

There are a few places in the south where it's cool to be liberal. My personal favorites are Asheville, NC and Oxford, MS. Still, they're too few and far between.

nmrsnr: Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

Well, under the current system, large states like CA, NY, and TX are ignored, which is lamer than ignoring AK, WY, RI, MT, etc

The EC is just plain stupid

Lionel Mandrake: large states like CA, NY, and TX are ignored,

I thought you were arguing against the EC.

doyner: Lionel Mandrake: large states like CA, NY, and TX are ignored,

I thought you were arguing against the EC.

Whoa, hey, yer talkin' to a Californian here, pal!

/ignoring Texas is OK, though

Dwight_Yeast: malaktaus: Dwight_Yeast: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't Clinton carry the Deep South?

He won Louisiana and Arkansas, and Georgia in 1992, but not Mississippi or Alabama.

So, basically, no.

/Louisiana isn't "The South"

But it is the "Deep Derp."

Coco LaFemme: It really doesn't matter if we keep the Electoral College or if we dump it and go straight popular vote. There are states in this country that will never vote for a certain party, regardless of the means by which the votes are divvied up. Alabama will never go blue again, New York will not go red. So even if we got rid of the EC, there aren't enough Democrats in Alabama, nor are there enough Republicans in New York.

What we need to do is make voting mandatory. Something like 40% of the electorate votes every 4 years, which is farking pathetic. More people give a shiat about who wins Dancing With The Stars, than who is elected President. When you're 18, you should be required to register to vote, and if you don't vote, unless you have a hardship, you're fined. Maybe $30 or something, and that money gets put in your town/city's coffers to fund public works projects, like a new playground in the inner city for kids, or refurbishing a local library.

Sweden and Australia get near 96%. Yes, make it compulsary or pay a $20 penalty. And how about weekend voting? A number of democracies have multiple voting days. But of course, isn't it better for Republican secretaries of state to dole out too few voting machines for minority (democratic) neighborhoods which results in people unable to vote due to long lines?

I'm from Arkansas (lived in 7 of the former Confederate states by age 30), and I recall precisely why Arkansas voted for Clinton. My parents were a prime example.

1) It got him out of Arkansas.
2) It would be good for the state in general.

skipjack: I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Bless your heart.

xynix: LordZorch: When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

Those were "Southern Democrats" which in fact are far-right republicans and Strom Thurmond pretty much started the final shift of the racist right to move from Democratic votes to Republican. It didn't start there though .. To understand where this rift happened and how there is a great book called Team of Rivals which is about Lincoln's presidency but doesn't focus on the president wholly. It's a great read for someone trying to figure out how back-door politics works and explains why Lincoln was a Republican. I've also read Grants, FDRs, Ikes, Reagan, and Bush's biographys. All good reads even if you don't agree with policies.

Made for some very interesting alliances in congress over the decades. Great stuff to learn about - too bad what passes for a government today is so clueless in comparison.

Dwight_Yeast: doyner: I'm from Arkansas (lived in 7 of the former Confederate states by age 30), and I recall precisely why Arkansas voted for Clinton. My parents were a prime example.

1) It got him out of Arkansas.
2) It would be good for the state in general.

Carpet bombing and the assassination of the Walton and Tyson families would be go for Arkansas.

That's just plain uncivil.

Arkansas is a fine place to live. It will go blue long before TN, MS, AL, and LA.

LordZorch: When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

no, they just changed their party affiliation to "R" after the civil rights act.

prior to that, the "dixiecrats," as they were known, were bible-thumping racists that would make even today's tea party blush.

GAT_00: Oh, and before someone asks what it's called today, it's called voting for the Tea Party.

In your case they just call it being an idiot with a computer. Go back to playing Tetris, it's about all you're good for.

xynix: Strom Thurmond pretty much started the final shift of the racist right to move from Democratic votes to Republican

It seems to have been Hubert Humphrey who gave him the kick in the ass to motivate him that way, though.

doyner: Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population.

It's probably related to what psychology calls "high need for cognitive closure".

Dwight_Yeast: I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't Clinton carry the Deep South?

HotIgneous Intruder: How soon we forget that Abraham Lincoln was a republican and the solid southern democrats were the party opposed to the abolition of slavery.

Perhaps you missed the earlier discussion on the shift due to the civil rights movement?

HotIgneous Intruder: The solid democratic south has been triangulated into oblivion and now it the GOPers who have taken the democrats' place in the flaming lynch mob.

Actually, no. It's more that the flaming lynch mob changed party registrations.

HotIgneous Intruder: I think the GOPers are the new Know Nothings.

Although they're a bit less anti-Catholic than the old version, I'd mostly agree with that.

FlashHarry: prior to that, the "dixiecrats," as they were known, were bible-thumping racists that would make even today's tea party blush.

...in that most of the Tea Party is loathe to concede the degree that they are racist, while the Dixiecrats were loathe to concede that racism was a bad thing.

skipjack: GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: ....... You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Give me a flying leaping freaking break.
Your area, Nashville, is the homeland of Bob Corker, and is not the same 'area' as Knoxville' where know-it-all Gat lives, he is talkative, hardly an idiotic martyr ... you must be jealous of his popularity.

Nor in your wildest is Nashville a dangerous place for a conservative, for crying out loud. Unless you mean longhair who prefer classical music. I'd be in peril their either way. Never go there. It's creepy. Like Dalls.

And don't start claiming you're in 'the same area as' Chattanooga, my fair city. If you come anywhere close you'll feel the warmth of how much we prefer you to stay in your rolling hills of horse country.
However, let us remember we do not live in Alabama.

Infernalist: It should be noted that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers because they rightfully understood that most of the general population is/was painfully uneducated and ignorant and they didn't trust a tyranny of the masses.

Well, that and they saw the states as deserving a majority stake in deciding the presidency of the republic.

Weigard: Dwight_Yeast: Carpet bombing and the assassination of the Walton and Tyson families would be go for Arkansas.

Arkansas homes don't have carpets.



One thing we do have over most of the rest of y'all is the basic civility not to insult people to their face. It's called manners.