Originally posted by dadudemon"You'll lose b*tch... because I'm the president." My cheeks hurt from laughing.
Mods, I hope this isn't over-the-line, but this made me laugh:(Wait for 30 seconds...it starts to get good)
Holy shit, that's not a landslide, that's a pyroclastic cloud. I like CGPGrey's video on the electoral college:
Apparently Obama won't really win the election until next month.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
The 1984 election was 525 to 13 Reagan over Mondale [b]that's a landslide. Also, the popular vote (which by all rights should determine the election) was much closer. The electoral college needs to go. [/B]
obama won the popular vote by almost 3 million. guess again.
maybe if we only allow white people to vote?
Originally posted by Lord Lucieni thought this was a pretty decent argument:
Holy shit, that's not a landslide, that's a pyroclastic cloud. I like CGPGrey's video on the electoral college:Apparently Obama won't really win the election until next month.
7wC42HgLA4k&feature=relmfu
Originally posted by Oliver North
Because California and New York don't have enough influence?
While they do cast a lot of votes California and New York its hard to say that they have a lot of "influence", in fact they're kind of irrelevant to the race as far as candidates are concerned. Nothing either candidate does is going to turn them red so no one cares about appealing to voters in Cali and New York. If you remove the electoral college suddenly the 30% to 35% of Republican voters there are worth chasing. In fact removing the electoral college means that California and New York no longer have any influence on the election, California and New York voters do, states voting as a bloc is a consequence of the electoral college in the first place.
Just a question, with he laws passed not so long ago allowing candidates to keep unspent campaign funds for personal use, how much money did Romney personally make off the campaign? I mean there have been accusations for months that the only reason Gingrich ran (and ran so poorly) was to pay off his debts and make up for his sagging book sales so he could retire with at least 5 mil in the bank instead of being over a million in the red.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Just a question, with he laws passed not so long ago allowing candidates to keep unspent campaign funds for personal use, how much money did Romney personally make off the campaign? I mean there have been accusations for months that the only reason Gingrich ran (and ran so poorly) was to pay off his debts and make up for his sagging book sales so he could retire with at least 5 mil in the bank instead of being over a million in the red.
No. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 made that illegal. There are other goodies in that law that make some actions of federal employees illegal, too.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:h.r.03660:
I think that it should extender further, however, in restricting a federal employee from ever getting to work for any business/employer that their actions while a federal employee (elected or not) crossed the paths of said employer.
For instance, Wal-mart lobbies you to make a law that will benefit their corporation. Even if it benefits many other corporations, you are automatically barred from working for Wal-mart or any of its subsidiaries. I think this would greatly change the dynamic of how congress and the PotUS would operate. I would not want any exceptions except for those companies which combine greater than 5 years after their time employed.
For instance, if Time Warner combined with Cox Cable, any federal employee that had dealings with either company, while employed as a federal employee, would bar them from working for Time Warner or Cox Cable (and their subsidiaries) UNLESS those two companies merged 5 or more years AFTER that federal employee's tenure AS a federal employee.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
While they do cast a lot of votes California and New York its hard to say that they have a lot of "influence", in fact they're kind of irrelevant to the race as far as candidates are concerned. Nothing either candidate does is going to turn them red so no one cares about appealing to voters in Cali and New York. If you remove the electoral college suddenly the 30% to 35% of Republican voters there are worth chasing. In fact removing the electoral college means that California and New York no longer have any influence on the election, California and New York voters do, states voting as a bloc is a consequence of the electoral college in the first place.
to be clear, I'm not a huge fan of "first-past-the-post" style elections
however, its not so much a red/blue thing, as it is a city/rural thing. Red issues to people in California are probably not the same as those in Arkansas. Without the electoral college, the bias goes to cities over individuals.
Nothing is perfect, but I do think the electoral college addresses some real issues (though, admittedly, the issue could have been more important 100 years ago)
Originally posted by Oliver North
to be clear, I'm not a huge fan of "first-past-the-post" style electionshowever, its not so much a red/blue thing, as it is a city/rural thing. Red issues to people in California are probably not the same as those in Arkansas. Without the electoral college, the bias goes to cities over individuals.
Nothing is perfect, but I do think the electoral college addresses some real issues (though, admittedly, the issue could have been more important 100 years ago)
The video someone posted a bit back addresses this. In the US, at least, you have to appeal to more than just cities to win the popular vote. The 100 biggest cities only contain about 20% of the population all together. It's not as though candidates are avoiding cities right now anyway.