If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

3897 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Aug 2012 at 7:04 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

*tough/touchy

consider this: Rwa2play: No, it's "winner take all"...again read the wiki first genius.

When you come back, be sure to have a good reason why states should stick with "winner take all" and not split the votes.

State legislatures are responsible for how electoral votes are divvied up; either winner-takes-all, electoral districts, Congressional District, or proportional. Splitting the votes, as you propose, would make it almost impossible for a candidate to achieve the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. California has 55 electoral votes; if Obama gets 66% of the popular vote, and California changed the method of apportioning electors and went to proportional....he'd get 2/3 of 55. What is 2/3 of 55? Not an even number, I'll help you out. So then how to do parse a fraction of an elector? That's one good reason to keep winner-takes-all. Keeps all the numbers nice and round, with no decimals. Two, if the state's apportionment was changed to Congressional District, candidates would only spend time in the heavily populated districts, rather than focusing on the entire state, which can draw accusations of gerrymandering. Same if it was changed to electoral districts.

Winner-takes-all is not only the best method in terms of the math, but the best method for insuring that the entire state's population is considered, rather than just those that are most beneficial to the candidate.

Rwa2play:
"Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote..

While this is true, it's not the reason we keep the system. We keep it because it forces presidential candidates to campaign t and make deals with the states, whereas under a split system they could more or less just rely on 50/50 in the majority of them and ignore all but a couple states with a stronger demographic divide.

consider this: Rwa2play: "Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote.

Well actually, there have been 4 instances of it not working. Guess somebody edited wikipedia on you.

You still missed the point: 4 times in nearly 220 years? If you're asking for perfection, look elsewhere or better yet, stop looking. You'll be disappointed on what you think perfection should be and what it is.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: Winner-takes-all is not only the best method in terms of the math, but the best method for insuring that the entire state's population is considered, rather than just those that are most beneficial to the candidate.

Yes, potentially invalidating the vote of 49.99% of the vote in a state is certainly the best way to do things.

Yes it is; Now, do we award part of the Vince Lombardi trophy to the New England Patriots for coming within one play of winning it? No; Giants had more points than them, so they won the trophy.

Same rule applies here; sorry if it doesn't meet up with your "lofty" standards.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: Winner-takes-all is not only the best method in terms of the math, but the best method for insuring that the entire state's population is considered, rather than just those that are most beneficial to the candidate.

Yes, potentially invalidating the vote of 49.99% of the vote in a state is certainly the best way to do things.

Move to another state then.

OMG you want to possibly invalidate 49.99% of the vote in the whole country.

/trolled

consider this: Rwa2play: "Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote.

Well actually, there have been 4 instances of it not working. Guess somebody edited wikipedia on you.

He said two *notable*. Learn to read. Most people know of Rutherford B. Hayes and George W. Bush because both elections were fraught with a lot of controversy. Most people do not know about John Quincy Adams or Benjamin Harrison. You'll note again that he didn't say only two. He said two *notable*. Words matter.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: If you eliminate the Electoral College and only use the popular vote, candidates will completely ignore smaller, less populated states, in favor of heavily populated areas.

Yeah because they don't do that now. Can you come up with a thought of your own or is everything you say something you've read on the internet?

Barack Obama went to all 50 states in 2008. It's actually important for a candidate to appear in or appeal to all states, since more states are turning purple nowadays, and more states are in play in terms of flipping, than in past elections. Obama went to states that had no chance in hell of turning blue, especially in the Deep South, but he went anyway.

I don't need to get my ideas/opinions/thoughts from the Internet. My mind works just fine. Yours on the other hand, well.....the jury's still out. For someone with such a recent account, I wonder whose sock-puppet you are.

moralpanic: Cletus C.: Emposter: Given Romney's history and stated positions, can anyone explain to me the significant differences between negative campaigning and simply describing Romney accurately?

What are the dems supposed to do here, lie to make Romney look good?

Maybe give us some reason to vote for Obama, other than Romney Bad.

Killed Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't him
Saved the economy from collapsing? Wasn't him
Saved Detroit? Who cares about Detroit/wasn't him
Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terrible
Pulled out of Iraq? Fair enough
Actually bombing terrorists where they hid in Pakistan? And killing innocents in the process. He's no better than bush here
Ending Don't Ask Don't Tell? Fair enough
Got Gaddafi killed without putting any American soldiers in danger? Wasn't him
Didn't raise taxes, and don't want to raise taxes on the middle class? He wants to raise it on people who've already paid their share in taxes
When Americans are held hostages, he gets the SEALs to kill the pirates and hostage takers? Fair enough
When there's a disaster, he isn't incompetent? He is incompetent
He doesn't base his foreign policy by looking into the soul of the person? I'm pretty sure he rolls a dice
He's actually well liked by the world community? A rock, when compared to the way Bush was received by the community, would have been liked more than him. Not an improvement, really

Nem Wan: A sign this election is, so far, not as close as 2008 or 2004 is that on these electoral college tracking polls, Romney has NEVER been ahead. In the two previous elections the lines crossed and the lead changed hands. Not this time, not yet.

Nate Silver has a good explanation for why that might be:

My offhand impression has been that the pace of presidential polling has been much slower than in 2008: that by this point in 2008, for instance, it would have been extremely unusual to not have any new state polls out on a given weekday, as happened on Monday.

It turns out that this is not just my imagination. I looked up the numbers - and the pace of polling has fallen quite dramatically from four years ago.

Sure enough, there are a lot fewer polls being done now than it 2004 or 2008. And many of the polls that are being done are terrible - you have polls showing massive swings in the electorate that don't make sense. Yes, voter ID swings, but the argument than between 2010 and today the Democrats suddenly surged in party identification doesn't hold water. If that were true, we'd see more signs of it in terms of voter registrations and voter enthusiasm. But what those measures show is that Democrats are substantially less enthused this time around than in 2008.

So we're getting incomplete data at best and bad data at worst - which explains why the trend lines are all over the map this year. We can say that Obama currently has a narrow lead in most of the swing states based on the data we have thus far, but that's not saying a hell of a lot if that data is polluted by shiatty sampling.

The only honest answer to where this race really is right now is "nobody knows fark all." Everything else is just supposition - and that's why normally-reliable predictors aren't as reliable now as they were in 2008. Because they're being fed off of the same polls, all of them are getting the same bad data.

We should start seeing better polling in the next few weeks as the race heats up, and then we'll start seeing the numbers move in one direction or another.

Maybe it's the channels I watch (Discovery, Military, Animal Planet, Nat Geo + Wild, History and H2, some of the other science and history channels, and Hub every so often to catch some Transformers G1, Animated and Prime), but I have yet to see one Democratic political commercial.

I have, however, seen, at least five Republican political commercials that are nothing but fear-mongering tirades about how Obama and the United Nations are plotting to force America to hand over all the guns, how Obama is an evil conniving demon who plots to hand America over to Satan, how Obama is this, that, and the other thing. Not ONCE have I seen a Republican campaign commercial that says anything about what/how Romney is going to do for America, in fact he's never mentioned at all. It's all slavering fear-mongering and hate-filled rants.

Maybe if the Republicans tried saying more than just "OBAMA EVIL! ROMNEY NOT OBAMA! VOTE ROMNEY!"...

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe if the Republicans tried saying more than just "OBAMA EVIL! ROMNEY NOT OBAMA! VOTE ROMNEY!"

Its kinda hard to campaign on your candidate's strengths and vision when he's sorely lacking in both.

Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terrible

So you're saying Romney's health care plan is terrible?

consider this: Rwa2play: You still missed the point: 4 times in nearly 220 years? If you're asking for perfection, look elsewhere or better yet, stop looking. You'll be disappointed on what you think perfection should be and what it is.

I'm asking for a system that counts the vote of every person, is that too much to ask?

I don't know if you're still pissed off Gore didn't win, or what.....but the Electoral College is a system that works, and has worked very, very well for the last 235 years. If I have a box that does something, and it's been doing this something for 235 years, and only 4 times in 235 years it did not work, I would not throw that box out and get a new box.

consider this: Rwa2play: You still missed the point: 4 times in nearly 220 years? If you're asking for perfection, look elsewhere or better yet, stop looking. You'll be disappointed on what you think perfection should be and what it is.

I'm asking for a system that counts the vote of every person, is that too much to ask?

Maybe not, but I still fail to see the problem here. Do you want every major American city to decide who the President is? Or do you want a system that gives weight to votes from Iowa, Mississippi on a similar scale with those of the major states?

Rockstone: Dumb words

And I'll bet you really believe that this is a meaningful response, too.

moralpanic: [img37.imageshack.us image 395x500]

I think i'm actually going to miss this election once it's over.

It's really wonderful, isn't it? And we were all worried it wouldn't be a curbstomp...

...Well, okay, in terms of trolling Obama's got kid gloves and frickin' handcuffs on, but it's apparently working wonders.

consider this: Rwa2play: Yes it is; Now, do we award part of the Vince Lombardi trophy to the New England Patriots for coming within one play of winning it? No; Giants had more points than them, so they won the trophy.

Same rule applies here; sorry if it doesn't meet up with your "lofty" standards.

There we have it folks, the most ridiculous analogy in the history of the internet.

Why? What you're asking for is what's happening with some kids' leagues all over the country: Every kid gets a trophy, regardless of whether they won or lost.

If that were to happen in this country, you'd have how our government functioned during the era of the Articles of Confederation. That, was at the least, chaotic.

Well, I guess I was wrong about Consider This.

You guys have turned him from being nothing but a squeaky wannabe into a pro in just one thread.

I am disappoint.

Given the FACT that republicans routinely refer to President Obama as a traitor (a far more serious charge), I have ZERO problem with them referring to a shady vulture capitalist like Rmoney as a felon.

Deal with it, crybabies.

New York City is nearly half of New York state's population. It is heavily Democratic. Chicago is 1/4 of Illinois's population. It is heavily Democratic. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is about half of California's population. It is heavily Democratic.

Sensing a pattern here? Large, urban areas are predominantly Democratic. Rural, more sparsely-populated areas are not. That goes for above and below the Mason-Dixon line. If the only vote that elected the President was the popular vote, candidates would only appeal to heavily populated areas, where they have the best chance to get the most voters. People in Bumblefarkville with the one stoplight wouldn't bother voting, because there would be no point.

Voter turnout in this country already sucks, you want to make it worse?

consider this: Coco LaFemme: I don't know if you're still pissed off Gore didn't win, or what.....but the Electoral College is a system that works, and has worked very, very well for the last 235 years. If I have a box that does something, and it's been doing this something for 235 years, and only 4 times in 235 years it did not work, I would not throw that box out and get a new box.

Yes, I mean what's the big deal if we elect a president with the minority of the vote once in a while?

Once in a while? Are you farking retarded? Before 2000, the last time it happened was 1888. Eighteen hundred and farking eighty-eight. That isn't quite "once in a while."

Tor_Eckman: Well, I guess I was wrong about Consider This.

You guys have turned him from being nothing but a squeaky wannabe into a pro in just one thread.

I am disappoint.

I'm bored, my boyfriend has the flu, and I can't sleep. I want to make the little sock-puppet dance for a while before I mercifully euthanize it.

Coco LaFemme: New York City is nearly half of New York state's population. It is heavily Democratic. Chicago is 1/4 of Illinois's population. It is heavily Democratic. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is about half of California's population. It is heavily Democratic.

Sensing a pattern here? Large, urban areas are predominantly Democratic. Rural, more sparsely-populated areas are not. That goes for above and below the Mason-Dixon line. If the only vote that elected the President was the popular vote, candidates would only appeal to heavily populated areas, where they have the best chance to get the most voters. People in Bumblefarkville with the one stoplight wouldn't bother voting, because there would be no point.

Voter turnout in this country already sucks, you want to make it worse?

Conversely, if you really believe democracy is one person, one vote, the electoral college gives the residents of Bumfark, AK far too much influence over who runs this nation that happens to have a very large number of people in large, urban areas.

How many thousand New Yorkers have the same amount of influence as one Wyoming resident when it comes to electing a senator?

consider this: Rwa2play: Why? What you're asking for is what's happening with some kids' leagues all over the country: Every kid gets a trophy, regardless of whether they won or lost.

Stop trying to top yourself.

Stop trying to evade your own point; if you wanted each and every vote to count then Bush/Gore wouldn't have decided until March 2001 maybe? The Summer of 2001? The race was that close that it would've taken weeks for 101+ million votes to be accounted for and verified. Add to that the legal challenges by both sides as to whether certain votes were legit where others weren't and you'd have chaos that wouldn't just affect how government would function, but it could (I say could) have affected financial markets worldwide because of the uncertainty of who would lead the United States.

So yeah, while Bush won and that sucked balls, the EC worked because it settled the matter right then and there. Otherwise, you would've still had major debates as to whether Bush or Gore got enough votes.

Bloody William: Conversely, if you really believe democracy is one person, one vote, the electoral college gives the residents of Bumfark, AK far too much influence over who runs this nation that happens to have a very large number of people in large, urban areas.

How many thousand New Yorkers have the same amount of influence as one Wyoming resident when it comes to electing a senator?

This is kind of it, the response to any defense of the EC. Why is it okay to disenfranchise urban voters to make rural voters feel more populous and more significant than they actually are?

consider this: three elections ago is soooooooooooooooooooo long ag

There were only three elections between 1888 and 2000?

Bloody William: the electoral college

Bloody William: electing a senator

No.

consider this: Rwa2play: So yeah, while Bush won and that sucked balls, the EC worked because it settled the matter right then and there.

Somebody doesn't remember 2000 that well. The electoral college is a ridiculous, outdated and not needed way of choosing a president, bottom line.

So IOW you would've wanted the other option? Weeks and weeks of not just verifying the votes but legal challenges galore as to who's vote counts?

Somebody doesn't remember how the markets reacted after the US credit rating was downgraded. Now think how the markets would've reacted if there was no President (or at least Clinton acted as a lame duck) well into February, March, etc. etc. and no governmental business was being conducted.

Do I send this sock-puppet off to the Island of Misfit Toys now, or do I wait a while longer?

Marcus Aurelius: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

I love how "upset" conservatives are getting because Obama's campaign has gone "negative." It seems like every other commercial here in Ohio is claiming that Obama is stealing money from your Grandma, hates all small businesses and other such nonsense, but those of course aren't negative, right?

They're upset about confronting a Democrat with a spinal column. This one actually fights back, which is clearly unfair.

"Lie still biatch! You're supposed to like it rough!"

Coco LaFemme: Do I send this sock-puppet off to the Island of Misfit Toys now, or do I wait a while longer?

Wait a while longer, might give you an idea. :)

consider this: Rwa2play: So IOW you would've wanted the other option? Weeks and weeks of not just verifying the votes but legal challenges galore as to who's vote counts?

What happened in Florida happened with the electoral college in place. What in the hell are you even trying to say? Whether or not the electoral college exists, votes still need to be accurately counted.

Didn't they try to twice and finally gave up? Memory's hazy.

Anyway, it's been in place for almost two and a half centuries and only had four problems. That's a far better ratio than some other things. Perfection is an impossibility.

consider this: Rwa2play: So IOW you would've wanted the other option? Weeks and weeks of not just verifying the votes but legal challenges galore as to who's vote counts?

What happened in Florida happened with the electoral college in place. What in the hell are you even trying to say? Whether or not the electoral college exists, votes still need to be accurately counted.

So, you're not understanding that having to sift through hundreds of thousands of votes is less time consuming than sifting through hundreds of millions of votes? Congratulations, you might be developmentally disabled.

consider this: Rwa2play: So IOW you would've wanted the other option? Weeks and weeks of not just verifying the votes but legal challenges galore as to who's vote counts?

What happened in Florida happened with the electoral college in place. What in the hell are you even trying to say? Whether or not the electoral college exists, votes still need to be accurately counted.

And again I say, you wanna keep the country on edge for weeks on end?

It wasn't just Florida: Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin were decided by less than 1%. Say Gore got Florida and won, what makes you think Bush wouldn't have thrown up challenges in those states?

Keizer_Ghidorah: Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terrible

So you're saying Romney's health care plan is terrible?

Well, yes

A Dark Evil Omen: Rockstone: Dumb words

And I'll bet you really believe that this is a meaningful response, too.

Brainwashed Noob.

consider this: Keizer_Ghidorah: Anyway, it's been in place for almost two and a half centuries and only had four problems. That's a far better ratio than some other things. Perfection is an impossibility.

In this case, perfection is as simple as adding up all the votes that have been counted and declaring a winner.

Mistakes happen. Deal with it.

Rockstone: Keizer_Ghidorah: Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terrible

So you're saying Romney's health care plan is terrible?

Well, yes

So, how should we ensure health coverage for the entire country?

consider this: Keizer_Ghidorah: Anyway, it's been in place for almost two and a half centuries and only had four problems. That's a far better ratio than some other things. Perfection is an impossibility.

In this case, perfection is as simple as adding up all the votes that have been counted and declaring a winner.

But did they REALLY put a hole in the mark next to Romney Bush's name? Or did they ACCIDENTALLY hit "Bush" when they meant "Obama" Kerry? Did they start to punch our guy's name and then hit the other one by mistake, or did they change their mind? After all, the popular margin wasn't that big...maybe all the ones who marked "Kerry" really meant "Bush" and then he would have won! Or the other way around, and then it would have been a landslide! And what about all those traditionally Dem counties that went Republican and vice versa? That can't be right! Clearly something is wrong and we need to run the entire election all over again...and again....and again.....

Even just adding up the votes would not equal perfection, if you really don't want it to be.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: Do I send this sock-puppet off to the Island of Misfit Toys now, or do I wait a while longer?

Well it's official, somebody lost the argument.

You can't lose an argument when one person is arguing facts, and the other is arguing opinion. I presented the facts of why the EC works, why changing the system of electoral vote apportionment is problematic, and why dropping it altogether in favor of popular vote only would disenfranchise more voters than it empowers. What did you do? None of that.

There is a reason the "loser" won only four times in 235 years, and not 20 times or something. The system works, and it's worked very well. It will continue to work well, and your butthurt over 2000 isn't going to change that. So go log into your other account and leave this one to rest, Scooter.

So this means that Todd Akin is President?

If Obama wins he'll do things but you'll get over it. If Romney wins, you won't get over it because you'll be homeless and starved to death.

Kumana Wanalaia: [s7.postimage.org image 641x568]

you libs are just lucky that we left out the part about how he's a lib, black, muslim, and from kenya

thurstonxhowell: Bloody William: the electoral college

Bloody William: electing a senator

No.

They're two parts of the same problem: tying territory size to political influence instead of making one vote count as one vote equally to all.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: You can't lose an argument when one person is arguing facts, and the other is arguing opinion. I presented the facts of why the EC works, why changing the system of electoral vote apportionment is problematic, and why dropping it altogether in favor of popular vote only would disenfranchise more voters than it empowers. What did you do? None of that.

There is a reason the "loser" won only four times in 235 years, and not 20 times or something. The system works, and it's worked very well. It will continue to work well, and your butthurt over 2000 isn't going to change that. So go log into your other account and leave this one to rest, Scooter.

Hey guys, the loser only won 4 times so it's a pretty good system. Never mind the fact that the winner would have won in every presidential election in our history if not for the electoral college. You've presented nothing but an opinion, a ridiculous one.

No, I presented quite a bit of fact, if you actually bothered to read anything.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure you're real broken up about the fact Samuel Tilden was never President.

Sensei Can You See: Karac: And if you can't take the word of someone who has been accused of associating with cocaine funded terrorists, of killing cancer patients, and of torturing dogs, then who can you trust?

I just realized something: Obama has never been accused of farking sheep on the White House lawn. Nor has be been accused of feeding poisoned dead rats to Haitian orphans. In fact, he has also never once been accused of stuffing puppies into a blender. Has he ever been accused of kidnapping nuns and selling them into sexual slavery? Not that I'm aware of.

You must not be following Bill Donohue on twitter.

Some of you guys need to reread the Cordes (FTFA) and Cutter (FTFT) quotes a bit more carefully. Focus especially on the words "might" and "either".

/might
//either

InfamousBLT: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

I love how "upset" conservatives are getting because Obama's campaign has gone "negative." It seems like every other commercial here in Ohio is claiming that Obama is stealing money from your Grandma, hates all small businesses and other such nonsense, but those of course aren't negative, right?

This. The best part is, my idiot parents keep complaining about how "Obama has a smear campaign." When I ask about the Romney commercials they say "well at least those are factual."

I don't even know how to argue derp like that.

Move out of their basement and you won't have to argue with them about petty political ads.

Weaver95: Did the Republicans seriously believe that Obama's campaign wasn't going to fight back...?

ok, Republicans listen up. Obama is kicking your asses. you guys have lied, manipulated, spent oodles of cash, 'shaded' the truth...and basically done everything that's in your playbook...and it's not working. Obama not only has a copy of your playbook, he's obviously made sure all his people read it as well. so either you come up with something new and radical, or you fail. this is your chance to show america that you guys have what it takes! quit sniveling, you whiny maggots! get yer heads in the game!

tell that to the democratic led senate about passing a budget.

consider this: Coco LaFemme: You can't lose an argument when one person is arguing facts, and the other is arguing opinion. I presented the facts of why the EC works, why changing the system of electoral vote apportionment is problematic, and why dropping it altogether in favor of popular vote only would disenfranchise more voters than it empowers. What did you do? None of that.

There is a reason the "loser" won only four times in 235 years, and not 20 times or something. The system works, and it's worked very well. It will continue to work well, and your butthurt over 2000 isn't going to change that. So go log into your other account and leave this one to rest, Scooter.

Hey guys, the loser only won 4 times so it's a pretty good system. Never mind the fact that the winner would have won in every presidential election in our history if not for the electoral college. You've presented nothing but an opinion, a ridiculous one.

You've presented nothing but some whining about a supposedly unfair system.

Newsflash: the system ain't gonna change between now and November.

As a famous Republican once said, "you don't go to war with the army you wish you had."

The Republicans are such farking babies. They beat up on women, try to flip shiat, and cry when they can't deal with it.

And this is their general policy. One must wonder what their voters are really like if this is considered voteworthy.

Coco LaFemme: If I have a box that does something, and it's been doing this something for 235 years, and only 4 times in 235 years it did not work, I would not throw that box out and get a new box.

Right, but the Electoral College doesn't do its thing continuously, but rather one time every four years.

So what we're really talking about is a failure rate of 4/58, or just under 7% of Presidential elections to date. That's a couple orders of magnitude worse than is generally considered acceptable.

(Presuming that 'success' means the EC outcome matches the national popular vote, and we're sick of repeatedly explaining why that was not the Founders' intent.)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.