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.

(Breitbart.com)   333,000 votes in four swing states would have given Romney the Presidency. Also, a set of external genitalia would have given him an uncle instead of an aunt   (breitbart.com) divider line 323
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, presidents, swing states, President Obama, socialist country, aunts, uncles, international  
•       •       •

6280 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2012 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 02:14:49 PM  

swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the divisions between North and South Dakota, Vermont and New Hampshire, and West Virginia and Kentucky are long outdated thanks to the introduction of that newfangled automobile thing. Some consolidation, possibly accompanied by splitting off Jefferson and maybe adding Puerto Rico, would go a long way toward fixing some of the extreme rural over-representation of the Senate. Not that this would ever happen.

I'd also put Oregon/Washington there, as both would be more coherent with an East/West split than North/South, but they have the whole division between income and sales taxes that no one would ever be able to agree on, which would also be a problem for VT/NH.
 
2012-11-12 02:19:24 PM  

foxyshadis: The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.


Do you really think giving these bumpkins more say is good for our farms, mines, and other natural resources?
 
2012-11-12 02:20:22 PM  
Is this the math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?
 
2012-11-12 02:20:25 PM  
You know those people that never get the hint to shut the fark up?
 
2012-11-12 02:44:45 PM  
I read that as 333,000 volts. Not sure how that would work.
 
2012-11-12 03:03:26 PM  
Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

Well, yes. In the same vein, when I get a wardrobe, it is not inherently assumed I will travel to Narnia.
 
2012-11-12 03:15:09 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-12 04:09:55 PM  
The DERP equivalent of a football commentator's insightful post-game analysis of: 

"You know, all they needed to do to win this game was put a few more touch-downs on the board..."
 
2012-11-12 04:22:57 PM  
The GOP lost because they broke the rule that's been around for centuries.

Don't fark with the poor, they have a habit of farking you back.

The 47% comment, the GOP attitude that the poor are loathsome ( Esp if they are not white ), When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour " you could hear his contempt in his voice, Blatant voter suppression in minority districts. People came out in droves just to tell the GOP to stick it where the sun don't shine.
At least Bush and Reagan were really good at pretending like they cared
 
2012-11-12 04:45:09 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour "


They're both pronounced the same way, aren't they?

The only 'poor' people I want to hear about are the people that tend to my pores at the spa.
 
2012-11-12 04:46:26 PM  

Slaxl: ItchyMcDoogle: When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour "

They're both pronounced the same way, aren't they?

The only 'poor' people I want to hear about are the people that tend to my pores pours at the spa bar.


ftfy
 
2012-11-12 04:55:05 PM  

SpaceButler: Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.

That adds up to about 60 million people, in a country of over 300 million. Without the EC, it's hard to imagine a scenario where campaigning only to about 20% of the total electorate would be a winning strategy.


Also, for the truly super small states right now, (ie, under 6 EV, which is 17 states), other than New Hampshire, nobody campaigns in those states because they are so red or blue it doesn't matter, in addition to the EV sizes are small.

The benefit I see with getting rid of EV is that MORE metro areas that are currently ignored will be "spoken to". I find it interesting that people bring up your point.... and right now, those 5 metro area's get essentially NO attention from the candidates, since they are all in non-swing states (even Philly, despite what the GOP had hoped, is barely a swing state anymore). Which seems crazy, think about that in any other election for anything else... would the candidate be ignoring the largest population centers when they run? Yet, that is exactly how we line up the Presidential Election with the E.C.

Right now, the largest metro area that is at least partially within a "swing state" is the Washington DC area (Virginia), which is 7th largest. Miami is 8th. Detroit is 13th (Barely a swing state as of late), then down to 18th with Tampa, and 21st with Denver.

So, right now, you've basically considered at least 16 of the 21 largest metro areas in the country as "unnecessary" to really talk to for the purposes of winning the E.V. How does that make any sense?
 
2012-11-12 04:58:49 PM  

foxyshadis: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the divisions between North and South Dakota, Vermont and New Hampshire, and West Virginia and Kentucky are long outdated thanks to the introduction of that newfangled automobile thing. Some consolidation, possibly accompanied by splitting off Jefferson and maybe adding Puerto Rico, would go a long way toward fixing some of the extreme rural over-representation of the Senate. Not that this would ever happen.

I'd also put Oregon/Washington there, as both would be more coherent with an East/West split than North/South, but they have the whole division between income and sales taxes that no one would ever be able to agree on, which would also be a problem for VT/NH.


Does that mean Oregon gets to smoke the weed all legal like? and washington can lose it's sales tax too?

/cause I'm ok with both of those
 
2012-11-12 05:16:31 PM  
What if?! What if Romney wasn't a pathological liar? What if Romney was likable?

Still wouldn't have helped... Republicans, your platform sucks... a lot. That's why you lost. Your platform resulted in a shiatty candidate because that's the only kind of candidate who would subscribe to your platform. You're going to lose big again in 2014 because you still haven't learned your lesson. You won't change your ways. You won't learn. You won't govern honestly or with good intent with what little power still remains in your grasp. By 2016, I'm hoping that the entire Republican party is dissolved and that a new political party rises up and tries to work together with their fellow Americans to solve our problems instead of against them. I want more options, not less... and your party is no longer an option.
 
2012-11-12 05:23:05 PM  

JohnnyC: What if?! What if Romney wasn't a pathological liar? What if Romney was likable?


He wouldn't have been a politician.

Thank you, I'm here all week.
 
2012-11-12 05:39:01 PM  
Yeah, and if I had received 52 million more votes than I did then I would have been President.
 
2012-11-12 05:40:45 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.

Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.


AssAsInAssassin: Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

If that's where the majority of people live, it makes perfect sense.


I've noticed that people in favor of retaining the Electoral College are incapable of making sense. They cannot get their heads around the idea that it's not "the most populous states" or "the biggest cities" dominating the vote (although in fairness, that is good language to use if the goal is intentionally to obfuscate). They also seem to struggle with the basic math of the EV not reflecting population, and with the basic fact of votes not mattering at all in a long list of non-swing states. It just bounces off of them.

States don't vote. Cities don't vote. Only individual people vote.

Here is the basic concept that they either don't understand or choose to ignore: If there are 10M voters in City X and 5.3M vote for Obama while 4.7M vote for Romney, Obama gets +0.6M votes, not +10M. Yet their arguments against Popular Vote only make sense if the latter were true, i.e. "City X will dominate the election because it has 10M voters".

Sure, candidates might focus their campaigning on locations with the densest populations, where they get the most bang for the buck on getting out their vote. But suggesting that is worse than focusing their campaigning on the few counties in a few states that might tip is, to put it politely, disingenuous. And suggesting that it means that campaigns will boil down to a handful of cities is frankly dishonest.

Oh, and I have zero patience for the "republic vs. democracy" word game. That is just another way of stating the question, not an answer.
 
2012-11-12 06:36:03 PM  

czetie: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.

Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.

AssAsInAssassin: Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

If that's where the majority of people live, it makes perfect sense.

I've noticed that people in favor of retaining the Electoral College are incapable of making sense. They cannot get their heads around the idea that it's not "the most populous states" or "the biggest cities" dominating the vote (although in fairness, that is good language to use if the goal is intentionally to obfuscate). They also seem to struggle with the basic math of the EV not reflecting population, and with the basic fact of votes not mattering at all in a long list of non-swing states. It just bounces off of them.

States don't vote. Cities don't vote. Only individual people vote.

Here is the basic concept that they either don't understand or choose to ignore: If there are 10M voters in City X and 5.3M vote for Obama while ...


I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC. It used to make sense--200+ years ago--but now it's an anachronism. My comment was this: If the majority of the people live in a few states, then it makes sense that those few states could decide the election. Square miles don't vote; people do. In 2008, Fox "News" pundidiots liked to hold up a map of the US to show how much more red it was than blue, and therefore, how "unfair" the election was, and that Obama didn't have a mandate. Problem is, as I said, square miles don't vote. People do.

So we agree.
 
2012-11-12 06:58:07 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.


Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.
 
2012-11-12 08:15:33 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.

Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.


It wouldn't happen overnight, granted. But it can happen. Or do you think the 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights are all moot arguments?

It used to be senators were appointed by the party. Was that a moot argument?

It used to be women couldn't vote. Was that a moot argument?

Abolition of slavery: moot?

You get the point.
 
2012-11-13 10:46:45 AM  

AssAsInAssassin: Snowflake Tubbybottom: AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.

Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.

It wouldn't happen overnight, granted. But it can happen. Or do you think the 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights are all moot arguments?

It used to be senators were appointed by the party. Was that a moot argument?

It used to be women couldn't vote. Was that a moot argument?

Abolition of slavery: moot?

You get the point.


No it is a moo point Link
 
2012-11-13 02:45:38 PM  
Republicans are working hard with vagina regulations, district serpentining and voter fraud
They should just work harder and have an appeal!
 
2012-11-14 01:52:59 PM  

dletter: SpaceButler: Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.

That adds up to about 60 million people, in a country of over 300 million. Without the EC, it's hard to imagine a scenario where campaigning only to about 20% of the total electorate would be a winning strategy.

Also, for the truly super small states right now, (ie, under 6 EV, which is 17 states), other than New Hampshire, nobody campaigns in those states because they are so red or blue it doesn't matter, in addition to the EV sizes are small.

The benefit I see with getting rid of EV is that MORE metro areas that are currently ignored will be "spoken to". I find it interesting that people bring up your point.... and right now, those 5 metro area's get essentially NO attention from the candidates, since they are all in non-swing states (even Philly, despite what the GOP had hoped, is barely a swing state anymore). Which seems crazy, think about that in any other election for anything else... would the candidate be ignoring the largest population centers when they run? Yet, that is exactly how we line up the Presidential Election with the E.C.

Right now, the largest metro area that is at least partially within a "swing state" is the Washington DC area (Virginia), which is 7th largest. Miami is 8th. Detroit is 13th (Barely a swing state as of late), then down to 18th with Tampa, and 21st with Denver.

So, right now, you've basically considered at least 16 of the 21 largest metro areas in the country as "unnecessary" to really talk to for the purposes of winning the E.V. How does that make any sense?


I doubt anyone's still reading this thread, but I had an odd thought while reading your post. The large metro areas are involved in the elections, in that they're great sources of campaign donations, and politicians will want to make their resident people and corps happy so they will donate.

So with the EC system working as it does now, the ridiculous expense of running for office is actually one of the only things helping to counteract the disproportionate influence of the swing states in a Presidential election.
 
Displayed 23 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report