2012 Presidential Election

Originally posted by Oliver North
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)

So apparently Allen West is refusing to concede, citing voting irregularities (he's going to use the suppression of people who would've voted against him as the basis of a legal challenge?) despite trailing in the voter count significantly. So what will you think will happen?
Will he:
A. Eventually give up and concede
B. Start a prolonged legal battle which will extend far into the representative elect's term
C. Kidnap his opponent and fire a loaded gun near his head until he concedes the race
D. Get his friends in the Outlaws gang to terrorize election officials until he wins with 23,000% of the vote
E. Become a lobbyist for interests and foreign dictators opposed to the Geneva Conventions and International Court of Justice. He will earn additional spending cash selling books blaming communists, Muslims, and Jews for his loss and lobbying as the token black-to-prove-they-aren't-racist for the Gun Owners of America (GOA) for an end to background check and the legalization of switch blades, automatic weapons, ballistic knives, knuckle dusters, switch blades, butterfly knives, and knives with more than two edges in every state.

I personally think it's a toss up B, C, D, and E.

I vote on A being the most likely. I think the probability of A is about 99%.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I vote on A being the most likely. I think the probability of A is about 99%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/mitt-romney-florida-election-results_n_2094513.html

About freaking time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, watch those 'Electoral College' videos on page 35. If his math is correct, then the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S. only make up 7.9% of the popular vote.

sure, and if you look at lists, those 8-20% of the people come from cities that are not evenly distributed around the nation.

Additionally, what I am talking about is more the statistic that something like 80% of the American population lives in cities, a staggering enough number that, were there no electoral college, it is easy to see 20% of the population being left out of the political conversation (especially if it isn't a single voting block of 20% of the people). Like, there are a handful of states who have no cities with more than like 100 000 people (iirc, I can look it up if you want).

Again, I'm not defending the electoral college, lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, do we really want the 80% of city dwellers to enforce their ideas of farm subsidies, etc, on the 20% of rural dwellers?

it seems like the way the census defines 'urban' as opposed to 'rural' is a very different distinction than that between people who live in cities vs small towns.

Today, thanks to the mechanization of agriculture, years of out-migration by young people, and reduced fertility among those left behind, just 3 million people 1 percent of the U.S. population live on farms. The rural population, however, has risen to 59 million, 21 percent of the U.S. total, despite a different procedure for defining rural territory. (The Census Bureau now defines rural as open country and small town areas that lie outside of "urban clusters" of 2,500 or more people, as measured by population density a procedure that has reclassified a significant number of former rural people as urban, especially in the densely-settled Northeast.

so that 80% would seem to include a good portion of small town america.

in any case, don't states like wyoming and idaho go largely ignored by these national elections anyway? it doesn't seem there's much of a way around that.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it seems like the way the census defines 'urban' as opposed to 'rural' is a very different distinction than that between people who live in cities vs small towns.

[...]

so that 80% would seem to include a good portion of small town america.

sure, my example of farm subsidies might not have been the most meaningful (though, there is a much greater direct relevance of farm economics to small town areas than to cities, I'm assume at least), but clearly there are issues that are going to be more relevant to rural people, or that urban people might not have the same experience or perspective on, and I legitimately think something should be done to ensure inclusiveness.

but no, I don't think it is fair that Obama can get 50% of the vote but some huge majority in the electoral college, that is equally problematic.

Originally posted by red g jacks
in any case, don't states like wyoming and idaho go largely ignored by these national elections anyway? it doesn't seem there's much of a way around that.

but if we are talking about electoral reform, why not try to figure out a way where competing interests like this are more balanced?

no idea how, just being utopian

yea, well i don't know enough about this to make any authoritative statements, but i would think that those specialized interests which are unique to rural areas would be better dealt with by their local representatives than by the president.

also... just looking at the matter pragmatically, the way it seems to play out is those states vote consistently conservative so there is no need for either side to try to cater to them. whether we have the electoral college or not there's inevitably going to be a limited amount of money and time in a campaign.. it's hard to picture a scenario where it becomes really strategically vital to campaign heavily in the mountain states.

Originally posted by red g jacks
also... just looking at the matter pragmatically, the way it seems to play out is those states vote consistently conservative so there is no need for either side to try to cater to them. whether we have the electoral college or not there's inevitably going to be a limited amount of money and time in a campaign.. it's hard to picture a scenario where it becomes really strategically vital to campaign heavily in the mountain states.

wouldn't this mean that, pragmatically, there is a practice that denies constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to a large portion of the population?

I mean, sure, there is no clause that enshrines the right to your vote counting, but I think we might be able to infer that was the idea, no?

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, and if you look at lists, those 8-20% of the people come from cities that are not evenly distributed around the nation.

Additionally, what I am talking about is more the statistic that something like 80% of the American population lives in cities, a staggering enough number that, were there no electoral college, it is easy to see 20% of the population being left out of the political conversation (especially if it isn't a single voting block of 20% of the people). Like, there are a handful of states who have no cities with more than like 100 000 people (iirc, I can look it up if you want).

Again, I'm not defending the electoral college, lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, do we really want the 80% of city dwellers to enforce their ideas of farm subsidies, etc, on the 20% of rural dwellers?

Okay, good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

That's an interesting choice of example. Right now one of the reasons the electoral college is considered a problem is because it gives rural areas too much leeway to enforce their ideas of farm subsidies on everyone else.

I'd say that getting candidates to pay attention to 80% of the country spread across a dozen states is better than having them focus on five or six states. The country is getting more urbanized. That should be something candidates have to focus on.

Originally posted by Oliver North
wouldn't this mean that, pragmatically, there is a practice that denies constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to a large portion of the population?

I mean, sure, there is no clause that enshrines the right to your vote counting, but I think we might be able to infer that was the idea, no?

Yes. For example I live in a very red part of a very blue state. We don't get political ads except for local elections. What happens is everyone here votes Republican and then their votes are rendered meaningless when 60% of the state votes Democrat. The candidates would actually be wasting money to campaign here.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Additionally, what I am talking about is more the statistic that something like 80% of the American population lives in cities, a staggering enough number that, were there no electoral college, it is easy to see 20% of the population being left out of the political conversation (especially if it isn't a single voting block of 20% of the people). Like, there are a handful of states who have no cities with more than like 100 000 people (iirc, I can look it up if you want).

I know Wyoming has less than a million total population and only Cheyenne and Casper have a population of over 50,000.

But I see your majoritarianism and raise you minoritarianism. Should the 20% REALLY get to dictate policy for the other 80%?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Again, I'm not defending the electoral college, lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, do we really want the 80% of city dwellers to enforce their ideas of farm subsidies, etc, on the 20% of rural dwellers?

There are TONS of "farm" cities in the mid-west. I grew up next to a "farm town" and I am currently living in one. There is a massive flour processing plant "down-town" in my city and there are tons of farmers farming all around this city (and the sister city). You only have to drive 2 miles from my house to run across cattle and soy-crop farms. They are still within the city limits of this town, as well. The population, here, is greater than 20,000.

Did you have another example besides that one?

But, yes, polls were showing the Romney had less than 40% support in "urban voters". A significant portion of the vote would almost always go to the D if we did strict population voting.

Originally posted by Oliver North
wouldn't this mean that, pragmatically, there is a practice that denies constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to a large portion of the population?

I mean, sure, there is no clause that enshrines the right to your vote counting, but I think we might be able to infer that was the idea, no?

the only ones whos vote is really useless is those like Symmetric pointed out above, the non republican voters in definitively red states and non democrat voters in blue states.

Originally posted by red g jacks

the only ones whos vote is really useless is those like Symmetric pointed out above, the non republican voters in definitively red states and non democrat voters in blue states.

THIS is precisly why the electoral college needs to go. It was put in place when the fastest form of communication was horse and rider so it made sense from the late 1700s thru the mid 1800s when the telegraph was invented at which point it should have been abolished

Iunno, telegraphs would suck as voting instruments. Once the phone became commonplace though.

You need to become commonplace with these nuts, Lucien.

I really don't recall the Dem/Libs being this butthurt when Bush beat Kerry in 04'.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You need to become commonplace with these nuts, Lucien.

Originally posted by Robtard
I really don't recall the Dem/Libs being this butthurt when Bush beat Kerry in 04'.

conservatives tend to have a permanent bratty adolescent mindset.

if they win its fair. if they lose then they were obviously cheated and so they're gonna take their ball and go home.