|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 25 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You think the Democrats could lose control of the Senate...
In 2014 it is a possibility. Its not a big possiblity but it is a possibility. Of course even if they lose the Senate in 2014 they would get it back in 2016 fairly easily but if they are somehow able to hold even in 2014 then they will probably be able to fairly easily get back to a 60+ vote majority in 2016 which would make all this deal making a waste of time anyway.
|
On January 25 2013 10:54 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You think the Democrats could lose control of the Senate... In 2014 it is a possibility. Its not a big possiblity but it is a possibility. Of course even if they lose the Senate in 2014 they would get it back in 2016 fairly easily but if they are somehow able to hold even in 2014 then they will probably be able to fairly easily get back to a 60+ vote majority in 2016 which would make all this deal making a waste of time anyway.
What kind of crazy is this post. Any party can get a 60+ majority after any election. The vast majority of the time there won't be a 60+ majority making this deal making worth what little it is worthwhile.
|
On January 25 2013 11:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 10:54 Adreme wrote:On January 25 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You think the Democrats could lose control of the Senate... In 2014 it is a possibility. Its not a big possiblity but it is a possibility. Of course even if they lose the Senate in 2014 they would get it back in 2016 fairly easily but if they are somehow able to hold even in 2014 then they will probably be able to fairly easily get back to a 60+ vote majority in 2016 which would make all this deal making a waste of time anyway. What kind of crazy is this post. Any party can get a 60+ majority after any election. The vast majority of the time there won't be a 60+ majority making this deal making worth what little it is worthwhile.
You realisticaly cant after any election. I mean in theory you could but realistically only so many seats are competitive (for example in house its something like 35 competitive seats) but 2016 is probably going to be a big democratic year in the senate because its the re-election for the senators who got elected in 2010 which was a republican sweep in a lot of states that they dont normally win.
There's also the fact that he has to work with the Senate republicans to do things and as a whole the Senate at the moment isnt the body that is going to be causing the governing problems over the next 2 years. I mean just look at what happened with the fiscal cliff deal, it passed with 89 votes in the senate but seemed like it might not have passed the house and then passed the house by a far far smaller margin.
|
On January 25 2013 11:43 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 11:22 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2013 10:54 Adreme wrote:On January 25 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You think the Democrats could lose control of the Senate... In 2014 it is a possibility. Its not a big possiblity but it is a possibility. Of course even if they lose the Senate in 2014 they would get it back in 2016 fairly easily but if they are somehow able to hold even in 2014 then they will probably be able to fairly easily get back to a 60+ vote majority in 2016 which would make all this deal making a waste of time anyway. What kind of crazy is this post. Any party can get a 60+ majority after any election. The vast majority of the time there won't be a 60+ majority making this deal making worth what little it is worthwhile. You realisticaly cant after any election. I mean in theory you could but realistically only so many seats are competitive (for example in house its something like 35 competitive seats) but 2016 is probably going to be a big democratic year in the senate because its the re-election for the senators who got elected in 2010 which was a republican sweep in a lot of states that they dont normally win. There's also the fact that he has to work with the Senate republicans to do things and as a whole the Senate at the moment isnt the body that is going to be causing the governing problems over the next 2 years. I mean just look at what happened with the fiscal cliff deal, it passed with 89 votes in the senate but seemed like it might not have passed the house and then passed the house by a far far smaller margin.
I disagree completly. Between the way that demographics are changing (you can really only gerrymander so much and only then every 10 years) and the way that the parties are heading (GOP publicly saying how they're rebuilding while the dems keep marching forward with a very strong presidential candidate for 2016 and without the liability of any extremist faction of the party) I would not really be surprised to see a slow redo of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
|
On January 25 2013 11:43 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 11:22 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2013 10:54 Adreme wrote:On January 25 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You think the Democrats could lose control of the Senate... In 2014 it is a possibility. Its not a big possiblity but it is a possibility. Of course even if they lose the Senate in 2014 they would get it back in 2016 fairly easily but if they are somehow able to hold even in 2014 then they will probably be able to fairly easily get back to a 60+ vote majority in 2016 which would make all this deal making a waste of time anyway. What kind of crazy is this post. Any party can get a 60+ majority after any election. The vast majority of the time there won't be a 60+ majority making this deal making worth what little it is worthwhile. You realisticaly cant after any election. I mean in theory you could but realistically only so many seats are competitive (for example in house its something like 35 competitive seats) but 2016 is probably going to be a big democratic year in the senate because its the re-election for the senators who got elected in 2010 which was a republican sweep in a lot of states that they dont normally win. There's also the fact that he has to work with the Senate republicans to do things and as a whole the Senate at the moment isnt the body that is going to be causing the governing problems over the next 2 years. I mean just look at what happened with the fiscal cliff deal, it passed with 89 votes in the senate but seemed like it might not have passed the house and then passed the house by a far far smaller margin.
And then the Senate can't pass a budget...
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.html
I was reading this article and it was pretty shocking. If electoral votes were given out on a district by disrict basis instead of a state by state basis Romney would have won the election instead of obama. Isn't an electoral system kinda the system used by other countries like the british and japan were people elect different representatives and then those representatives will vote for a pm for the country?
|
On January 25 2013 23:33 Sermokala wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.htmlI was reading this article and it was pretty shocking. If electoral votes were given out on a district by disrict basis instead of a state by state basis Romney would have won the election instead of obama. Isn't an electoral system kinda the system used by other countries like the british and japan were people elect different representatives and then those representatives will vote for a pm for the country?
Yeah but it ends up being the same or worse.
The representatives get put in safe seats that aren't their hometown so they don't actually care about their constituency. They are also always going to vote for the same PM. The other thing is that the districts can shift between each election and can lead to corruption and pork barrelling of the worst kind.
The same thing happens the other way around too. Sometimes the PM that got elected ended up having less votes than his opposition simply because of the arrangement of the districts.
|
On January 25 2013 23:33 Sermokala wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.htmlI was reading this article and it was pretty shocking. If electoral votes were given out on a district by disrict basis instead of a state by state basis Romney would have won the election instead of obama. Isn't an electoral system kinda the system used by other countries like the british and japan were people elect different representatives and then those representatives will vote for a pm for the country?
Not exactly, since most other countries have multiple parties that have seats in the house of commons, or the house in US case. So are PM is a result of who can get the most votes for one party; however if a party doesn't have a majority of seats the other parties can always form a coalition (deal between 2 parties) and form a governement instead of the party that got the most number of votes.
Basically what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be "bad" to have that system, but it is when there are only 2 parties, so whoever wins the election basically controls presidency and the house.
Also PM is a member of the house, so he gets to chose his cabinet, but there are ways to make him no longer prime minister in the house; which basically means to disolve the governement and force an election. In the US it's an impeachement I believe, but in Canada any bill in the house that is a tax bill, spending bill or a vote from the Speech from the Throne (not sure what this is) is considered a vote of confidence for the governement and if it doesn't pass we get elections.
So a PM must always have multiple parties or members on board or we have election. That's one of the reasons Canada has had 4 elections from 2004-2011.
On January 25 2013 23:52 sluggaslamoo wrote:Yeah but it ends up being the same or worse.
The representatives get put in safe seats that aren't their hometown so they don't actually care about their constituency. They are also always going to vote for the same PM. The other thing is that the districts can shift between each election and can lead to corruption and pork barrelling of the worst kind.
The same thing happens the other way around too. Sometimes the PM that got elected ended up having less votes than his opposition simply because of the arrangement of the districts.
Yes but don't you have a clause that a member representing a district must have a minimum of 4 000$ of land in that district (or something of that order). I know we have that in Canada, and normally people vote mostly for the local boy, but I come from a small province, so most seats are pretty spaced out.
|
Wikipedia has made their own map of election formats here.
USA, Canada and UK are the only western countries using FPTP. Whether district, electoral or popular voting, it is still rather special.
As for why district voting would go to Romney in a landslide, well rural areas are traditionally republican by nature. That urban districts often hold 10 times+ (with major uncertainty) the number of people per districts and that they vote democratic traditionally is a bit of a gerrymandering task if you want the votes to hold even remotely the same value in an election. And then you are dealing with single election site districts, determining the size of the rural districts. What a mess! It is an even more worthless feature than popular vote FPTP.
|
On January 26 2013 05:16 radiatoren wrote:Wikipedia has made their own map of election formats here. USA, Canada and UK are the only western countries using FPTP. Whether district, electoral or popular voting, it is still rather special. As for why district voting would go to Romney in a landslide, well rural areas are traditionally republican by nature. That urban districts often hold 10 times+ (with major uncertainty) the number of people per districts and that they vote democratic traditionally is a bit of a gerrymandering task if you want the votes to hold even remotely the same value in an election. And then you are dealing with single election site districts, determining the size of the rural districts. What a mess! It is an even more worthless feature than popular vote FPTP.
Every district is supposed to hold nearly the same amount of people at the state level. At the federal level, each state has the same amount of people per district, but the states may have more or less per district based on (electoral votes/population).
Long story short: urban districts do not hold any more people than rural districts. If an urban area holds 10x more people than a rural area, it will have 10 times more districts than the rural area.
Every tenth year we hold a nationwide census to determine population shifts and rearrange the districts to ensure we have equal sized districts. While gerrymandering is undoubtedly a problem in some states, it doesn't change the fact that each district has essentially even populations.
|
Something in regards to the current dynamic of state voting districts and gerrymandering is going to have to change in the coming years, and it will likely end up coming before the Supreme Court. That Martin Luther King Day inauguration stunt in Virginia reeks so badly of malicious illegality I can hardly fathom how anyone even thought it was acceptable. Then again, John Husted in Ohio is sure working hard to disenfranchise his state's Democratic voters. Looks like its a nationwide competition amongst swing states to see who can draw up the shittiest districts.
Edit:^ The trick is to divide the urban population neatly amongst suburban districts so that the blue gets effectively dissolved. Duh!
|
On January 26 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:
Edit:^ The trick is to divide the urban population neatly amongst suburban districts so that the blue gets effectively dissolved. Duh!
And vice versa.
|
On January 26 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:
Something in regards to the current dynamic of state voting districts and gerrymandering is going to have to change in the coming years, and it will likely end up coming before the Supreme Court. That Martin Luther King Day inauguration stunt in Virginia reeks so badly of malicious illegality I can hardly fathom how anyone even thought it was acceptable. Then again, John Husted in Ohio is sure working hard to disenfranchise his state's Democratic voters. Looks like its a nationwide competition amongst swing states to see who can draw up the shittiest districts.
Edit:^ The trick is to divide the urban population neatly amongst suburban districts so that the blue gets effectively dissolved. Duh!
The next thing that's going to happen in the courts is that the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act will be struck down, and gerrymandering and voter suppression will be stepped up.
Between Citizens United and whatever the VRA case is going to be named, the Roberts Court is probably going to wind up being infamous.
|
If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos (source):
- Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney
- Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney
- Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney
- Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney
- Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney
- Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney
The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest.
|
On January 26 2013 05:48 Saryph wrote:If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos ( source): - Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney - Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney - Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney - Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney - Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney - Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest.
Well, if they wanted to, they could just pick who they wanted and not have an election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislature
The state is allowed to pick their electors however they want to. The fact that all do it by some form of a popular vote does not mean other methods are not allowed.
|
On January 26 2013 05:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 05:48 Saryph wrote:If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos ( source): - Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney - Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney - Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney - Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney - Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney - Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest. Well, if they wanted to, they could just pick who they wanted and not have an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislatureThe state is allowed to pick their electors however they want to. The fact that all do it by some form of a popular vote does not mean other methods are not allowed.
Save for extreme circumstances, I cannot see state legislature electoral appointments going through without a significant challenge. There is simply no modern precedent.
|
On January 26 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 05:56 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 05:48 Saryph wrote:If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos ( source): - Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney - Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney - Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney - Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney - Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney - Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest. Well, if they wanted to, they could just pick who they wanted and not have an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislatureThe state is allowed to pick their electors however they want to. The fact that all do it by some form of a popular vote does not mean other methods are not allowed. Save for extreme circumstances, I cannot see state legislature electoral appointments going through without a significant challenge. There is simply no modern precedent.
I don't disagree with you. I would object to Wisconsin going the appointment route even though I'm a Wisconsin Republican. It might be to my benefit, but it's just not fair. However, I think the idea of "splitting" the votes in a proportional manner (one for each district and two for the popular vote) are interesting ways to do it. I actually like that more than the "winner takes all" we currently have. Sure, Wisconsin will likely be a 5D-5R or 6D-4R in most years, but it's actually representative of our state rather than the 10/11D we've been the past 28 years.
|
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a better idea (and not specifically a partisan proposal) that is a lot closer to coming to fruition. Also, while only certain states are targets for the idea to apportion electors by district, it's the sort of plan that could easily backfire on the Republicans in the not too distant future.
|
On January 26 2013 06:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On January 26 2013 05:56 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 05:48 Saryph wrote:If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos ( source): - Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney - Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney - Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney - Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney - Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney - Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest. Well, if they wanted to, they could just pick who they wanted and not have an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislatureThe state is allowed to pick their electors however they want to. The fact that all do it by some form of a popular vote does not mean other methods are not allowed. Save for extreme circumstances, I cannot see state legislature electoral appointments going through without a significant challenge. There is simply no modern precedent. I don't disagree with you. I would object to Wisconsin going the appointment route even though I'm a Wisconsin Republican. It might be to my benefit, but it's just not fair. However, I think the idea of "splitting" the votes in a proportional manner (one for each district and two for the popular vote) are interesting ways to do it. I actually like that more than the "winner takes all" we currently have. Sure, Wisconsin will likely be a 5D-5R or 6D-4R in most years, but it's actually representative of our state rather than the 10/11D we've been the past 28 years.
While I don't mind the idea of proportional distribution, I horribly dislike gerrymandering, and would like to keep it out of as many aspects of politics and elections as I can.
|
It is interesting that the voting districts as they are currently in US are similar to Roman ones. And those were also heavily used to make some votes count more and some less. Well US is a republic so the similarity is maybe not so random, but the system is still terribly nonsensical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
