|
Post by gk on Aug 22, 2011 12:12:38 GMT -6
My inclination would be to suggest you register for the party you prefer and vote in the primary for your Representative. That's a good point. Hadn't thought of that. As someone who was unaffiliated last time around, I wasn't able to vote in the primaries.
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 22, 2011 12:13:46 GMT -6
Do we forget that Paul is the father of the tea party (or grandfather, or whatever)?
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 22, 2011 12:17:00 GMT -6
I do have a legitimate question for those of you leaning towards Obama. Is there one thing that he could do (or not do) that would cause you to say "I refuse to vote for him'? I mean realistically. Not like he comes to a press conference wearing diapers or converts to David Koreshism. It's hard for me to imagine voting for someone else. I've been quite frustrated with him at times, but I still align with him on many things. I might be able to imagine voting for a third party candidate of some sort, but probably not. At this point I'm definitely aligned more with democratic ideals and so I will vote that way. Of course things can change, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 22, 2011 12:19:37 GMT -6
I don't think Perry is crazy in the way Bachmann is, he's the exact prototype of the "do anything to stay in power" politician. Romney is a "do anything to stay in power politician," Perry is a crazy "do anything to stay in power politician."
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 18:38:35 GMT -6
Not sure you're paying attention. There are 23 Democratic seats up v. 10 Republican. The Rs are 4 short of a majority. If they can pick up 4 from Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, or Montana it could happen.
The only Republican seat I think they can lose is Massachusetts, but Scott Brown got the seat pretty recently. And there are enough other states in play that it can be picked up.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 22, 2011 18:56:08 GMT -6
Silly Grant. He thinks majority = 51. But duh, it takes 60 in the Senate to be a majority. (note: this is only true in the case of a Democratic majority)
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 19:56:15 GMT -6
True, but budget bills have an upper limit on filibustering. So with 51 votes and the House, we could actually pass a budget through Congress.
Been a while since that happened.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 29, 2011 10:51:58 GMT -6
Dave Weigel: "It occurs to me that the GOP's current front-runners are a governor who held statewide (and ineffective) prayers for rain, a congesswoman who says/jokes that God sends messages with natural disasters, and Mitt Romney."
|
|
|
Post by gk on Sept 22, 2011 13:25:28 GMT -6
I'm going to go ahead and start b*tching about the 2012 electoral college now before it's cool to do so.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Sept 22, 2011 22:14:48 GMT -6
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who likes the electoral college. Even if it originally went into place to protect everyone else from mighty Virginia.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Sept 23, 2011 9:27:14 GMT -6
Can you explain why you like it? Seriously, there are so few people wiling to stand up for it these days (despite its entrenched-ness) , I'd be interested to hear your take.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Sept 23, 2011 21:50:33 GMT -6
Sure. The electoral college was put into place because of fears from smaller states that the larger states (i.e. Virginia) would control all the elections due to their heavier populations.
I think that same concern is valid today, but you can substitute in the large cities vs. large states. If it was merely a matter of popular election, then the key places to campaign would be in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, etc. And in that type of thing you don't get representation from areas that are not major population centers. That generally means that smaller states (like Vermont or Delaware), or rural states (like Wyoming or Nebraska) could be underrepresented. And during a campaign they could be ignored as someone catered to the interests of citizens in the cities.
It also more closely models the way the Senate is put together. The Senate was created with 2 Senators each to equally represent states. They're also supposed to be the more moderate of the two bodies, as they're elected to longer terms and require 60% cloture for votes (as opposed to the House where they can ram through anything at 50%+1 votes). The President is supposed to be acting with the country at large's interest in mind, rather than one constituency. The electoral college forces him to broaden his base in order to receive election.
Also, it is left up to the states to apportion their electors. I know Maine (and maybe someone else) can split their electors. But most states work on a winner take all basis.
I think the other key thing people forget is that the United States is not a democracy. We're a representative republic, composed of several small yet sovereign states with a federal government to bind them together for the common good. And in the presidential election, you're actually voting for an elector from your state, who then selects a President on your behalf. Historically, that's pretty close to how the Continental Congress was put together- they picked someone from the state who would best represent its interests and sent them off.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Sept 23, 2011 21:53:41 GMT -6
And then from a pragmatic perspective, it's an awful lot more fun to watch it this way on election night!
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Sept 23, 2011 21:58:29 GMT -6
And for all that I've said, the above may be pretty outdated. When the Constitution was coming together no one elected a supreme leader directly. We didn't have direct election of Senators either, but that's come into the Constitution in the intervening time. And the federal government is a lot stronger relative to the states than it was when the country was founded.
Still (and this may be my conservatism showing) I like the idea of letting the states hold authority in things that are not national defense. "All politics are local", and when it comes to some of these things I think the states can often do a better job than the lawmakers in Washington, DC. But that's a big subject of national debate these days.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Sept 25, 2011 8:09:03 GMT -6
If it was merely a matter of popular election, then the key places to campaign would be in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, etc. And in that type of thing you don't get representation from areas that are not major population centers. That generally means that smaller states (like Vermont or Delaware), or rural states (like Wyoming or Nebraska) could be underrepresented. And during a campaign they could be ignored as someone catered to the interests of citizens in the cities. I get that, but when's the last time a presidential candidate campaigned in Vermont or Wyoming? My guess is never. Rather, the EC funnels all the campaigning to, like, 7 states. 70% of the country or whatever or so won't receive any attention from the campaigns. That marginalizes states that are one-sided and gives states like Florida and Ohio preferential treatment. It's hard to imagine, say, Social Security reform happening when Florida has its electoral votes and all those old people. Also, it's easy to see why the auto-industry was bailed out when Ohio and Michigan are swing states. For the record I think the Senate is an incredibly dumb institution and probably shouldn't exist in a mathematically coherent world. Montana and California really should not have the same amount of power over presidential appointments and law-ratifying.
|
|