The Longest Thread Ever v28 - Page 1051

LonelyNinja · 11-07-2012, 02:26 PM

Just watched Romney's concession speech and Obama's victory speech. Romney's crowd was much more civil than McCain's four years ago, and Romney's ego seems to have been taken down a peg. Obama's crowd and speech were what I expected. Lots of inspiring rhetoric, cheering, hope, change, and whatnot. But I'm hoping that something good can come out of all of this. Because shit needs to change, people need to start tolerating and cooperating with each other more.

***Demi-God*** · 11-07-2012, 02:48 PM

Obama/Putin 2012

Jaxon · 11-07-2012, 03:09 PM

Doom/Magneto 2016

ACt · 11-07-2012, 03:20 PM

^ No way in hell those two co-exist.

Vanity · 11-07-2012, 03:20 PM

Everyone sniveling about the electoral college needs to calm their tits. It works along with popular vote well enough, and it's not even the large states with higher amount of electoral votes that are what matters, it's the small swing states.

I think it needs to be changed just as much as anyone, but it doesn't function as shitty as some people are saying, and they're being unfair about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tzu Men

I thought this was more interesting: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/po...ico/index.html

I mean, the actual election result was very predictable. Obama was far more popular than Carter or Bush - you have to really fuck up in the eyes of voters to not get re-elected. Romney was never going to win.

As for the economic issues: I very much doubt that a talented leader who could 'fix' the situation will ever be elected. We want charisma and so we get populism. The economy will inevitably recover, and any great power's position on the world stage is precarious and subject to entropy.

This, but mostly because it'll take the House and Senate to structure a budget, and they're not cooperating. Eventually something will give, and they'll iron something out, but until then, they're being a load of hyper-partisan faggots.

OG · 11-07-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanity

Everyone sniveling about the electoral college needs to calm their tits. It works along with popular vote well enough, and it's not even the large states with higher amount of electoral votes that are what matters, it's the small swing states.

I think it needs to be changed just as much as anyone, but it doesn't function as shitty as some people are saying, and they're being unfair about it.

thats the problem, small states can swing votes.

fuck middle america.

***Demi-God*** · 11-07-2012, 04:07 PM

I do love the Electoral College, it's adorable.

"Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress..."

Quote:

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

Quote:

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

We know how well that last one turned out for 'Merica.

Quote:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States

Lol.

Vanity · 11-07-2012, 04:16 PM

Some of our smaller states are trying to enact laws that allow them to switch their electoral slate to match popular vote, though last I checked, I think only one actually does it...maybe two.

Edit: I lied, apparently eight states made the change in April.

I think the biggest reason it hasn't been changed is because it presents the opposite problem if they move to popular vote. Small states will lose their "voice" because campaigns will focus on areas with dense population [L.A, N.Y, Chicago, etc].

Numinous · 11-07-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

I think the biggest reason it hasn't been changed is because it presents the opposite problem if they move to popular vote. Small states will lose their "voice" because campaigns will focus on areas with dense population [L.A, N.Y, Chicago, etc].

Yes and no. Yes, campaigns will start to visit more populated areas if the electoral college is gone but, unless they candidates are morons, they'll need to pay visits to much more states because about 80% of Americans reside in locales with less than 200 000 habitants, so winning with only the metropolis' votes won't make any candidate president. Also, with the electoral college gone, the winner-take-all system in each state will probably be gone too, so candidates can't rely on "blue and red states" and have to make every vote count for them.

Vanity · 11-07-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numinous

Yes and no. Yes, campaigns will start to visit more populated areas if the electoral college is gone but, unless they candidates are morons, they'll need to pay visits to much more states because about 80% of Americans reside in locales with less than 200 000 habitants, so winning with only the metropolis' votes won't make any candidate president. Also, with the electoral college gone, the winner-take-all system in each state will probably be gone too, so candidates can't rely on "blue and red states" and have to make every vote count for them.

I gave the same reasoning when I had to write a paper on it. I'm merely suggesting why it's still being clung to.

My bigger concern with it is the way they draw districts, and how it completely cuts out third parties.

Jaxon · 11-07-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACt

^ No way in hell those two co-exist.

Doom only picked Magneto as a running mate for the mutant vote.

We all know where the power lies.

Numinous · 11-07-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanity

I gave the same reasoning when I had to write a paper on it. I'm merely suggesting why it's still being clung to.

Ah, got it.

Quote:

My bigger concern with it is the way they draw districts, and how it completely cuts out third parties.

Gerrymandering in the US is an issue that borders the absurd, being its prime child the 4th district of Illinois aka the Hispanic headphones. I think implementing an obligatory algorithm of shape compactness when defining districts in every state would solve half of the problem. The other would be make it mandatory to have optimal balance of race, collar color and partisan inclination among all districts of a specific state.

About third parties, that's why I advocate for alternative vote. While it may not solve the bipartisan nature of the US politics, at least it'll give a chance for minor parties' supporters to vote on them without wasting said vote.

Vanity · 11-07-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numinous

About third parties, that's why I advocate for alternative vote. While it may not solve the bipartisan nature of the US politics, at least it'll give a chance for minor parties' supporters to vote on them without wasting said vote.

I've written an obscene amount about changing the party system all together and moving to a PR system, though I doubt we'd ever see such a change. Sometimes I like to sit in on my favourite professors 101 class, just to listen to him yell at them, and that so many of them cling to our bipartisan system is testament to my grief. People like our party system just because "that's how it's been, and it works, right?" And I hear this constantly when I try to urge others into thinking of the system differently.

Edit: My fucking phone is still ringing with election stuff. This is the third I've had just this hour.

Numinous · 11-07-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanity

I've written an obscene amount about changing the party system all together and moving to a PR system, though I doubt we'd ever see such a change. Sometimes I like to sit in on my favourite professors 101 class, just to listen to him yell at them, and that so many of them cling to our bipartisan system is testament to my grief. People like our party system just because "that's how it's been, and it works, right?" And I hear this constantly when I try to urge others into thinking of the system differently.

Coming from a country which has PR for almost 40 years (would be 100 if dictatorship didn't happen inbetween), I find it appalling people not wanting that system, specially considering how many people complain about the two parties not catering to their ideologies.

And, honestly, Republican moderates should be begging for PR, considering it would give the chance to restructure the party by making the extremists wanting other parties that better cater their ideologies and would get a shot at representation, thus the Republican party having the chance of being a serious and respected party instead of the punchline of every joke. (Needless to say, Democrats could also use the same renewal.)

ask me anything · 11-07-2012, 06:57 PM

I like this version of Romney's concession speech. LOL, I love these guys.

11-07-2012, 02:26 PM	#15751
LonelyNinja Fight On, Fight Hard Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fistopia Age: 21 Posts: 389 Thanks: 111 Thanked 4,219 Times in 1,442 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 Just watched Romney's concession speech and Obama's victory speech. Romney's crowd was much more civil than McCain's four years ago, and Romney's ego seems to have been taken down a peg. Obama's crowd and speech were what I expected. Lots of inspiring rhetoric, cheering, hope, change, and whatnot. But I'm hoping that something good can come out of all of this. Because shit needs to change, people need to start tolerating and cooperating with each other more. __________________

11-07-2012, 02:48 PM	#15752
*Demi-God* BEST Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,263 Thanks: 2,813 Thanked 6,862 Times in 2,437 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 Obama/Putin 2012

11-07-2012, 03:09 PM	#15753
Jaxon Groovy. Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,393 Thanks: 3,601 Thanked 12,494 Times in 3,671 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 Doom/Magneto 2016

11-07-2012, 03:20 PM	#15754
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,264 Thanks: 5,327 Thanked 18,711 Times in 4,855 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 ^ No way in hell those two co-exist. __________________ It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

11-07-2012, 04:16 PM	#15758
Vanity Succumb Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 976 Thanks: 3,432 Thanked 5,983 Times in 2,238 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 Some of our smaller states are trying to enact laws that allow them to switch their electoral slate to match popular vote, though last I checked, I think only one actually does it...maybe two. Edit: I lied, apparently eight states made the change in April. I think the biggest reason it hasn't been changed is because it presents the opposite problem if they move to popular vote. Small states will lose their "voice" because campaigns will focus on areas with dense population [L.A, N.Y, Chicago, etc]. __________________ My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think. Last edited by Vanity; 11-07-2012 at 04:24 PM.

11-07-2012, 06:57 PM	#15765
ask me anything Simply AMAzing Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Impel Down Posts: 3,061 Thanks: 8,850 Thanked 3,368 Times in 1,502 Posts	Re: The Longest Thread Ever v28 I like this version of Romney's concession speech. LOL, I love these guys. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
Scientia

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode