|
|
On August 11 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 20:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 11 2012 18:38 Edlina wrote:
I'm going off the recent topic of Ryan as VP candidate and the proposals he and Romney have made - tax decrease = overall revenue increase is a ridiculous notion in all or almost all circumstances and certainly it's ridiculous with the current US taxes.
However, what I really wanted to know is, if someone could explain to me why the US system, to date, is set up in a way where 'the winner takes it all' in each State. I mean it's not very representative of Florida or Ohio, or any other State for that matter, that all of such State's delegates (or what they are called) go to a candidate whom fx obtain 51% of the votes...even the primary elections only function like this in a few certain States - no?
So why is it that way at the Presidential election - it seems to neglect all of the votes of huge voter groups in States where a party looses in a close race to the other party. Its even worse then that. Duo to this system and the way delegates are structured its possible for a President to be chosen with less votes then the runner up. The problem is that this system is designed to keep those with power in power. It ensures that Democrats and Republicans are the only parties able to gain power and they will never give that up. Yes... The delegate system totally can't be an aftermath of a democracy set up in a world where travel and information moved at a not-instant speed. No, it isn't to accomodate democracy by mitigating the month-long travel times, it is an evil conspiracy by Dem's and Rep's to control the nation. I can't find my remote, I wonder if the Illuminati has anything to do with it.
Travel time has absolutely nothing to do with the winner takes all system. The guy made a comment how if a state is won 49-51 the 49% is utterly ignored because the 51 gets all the delegates instead of splitting them as per vote percentages.
|
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral.
|
On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral.
Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works.
The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power.
|
On August 11 2012 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral. Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works. The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power.
Did we even have 8% growth post-WW2, when almost every other major nation in the world was rebuilding?
|
Paul Ryan is defiantly not the worst pick in the world if he was going with the moderate conservative he should have gone with Chris Christy (or however you spell it lol) I wanted him to pick Alan West personally but that would never happen. Paul Ryan I think is a very safe pick he is young, smart, and well spoken I haven't seen him debate but watching videos like the one 2 pages ago it makes me feel ok with this. I wanted someone like Christy to destroy Biden in debates (which isn't that hard) but I have a gut feeling with doing his home work Ryan might do really well.
Last why do people keep grasping at these polls they are all meaningless 99% of polls are done with random people with large portions that will not be voting. And many of these are very contrary to others that 2 weeks ago had Romney ahead or tied they very way too much to be a reliable pulse on the American voter.
|
On August 11 2012 21:17 tree.hugger wrote:
I'm still confused why Rubio didn't make the shortlist. The guy was one of the most inspiring options that Romney had, he could make a decent play for the hispanic vote, and he'd bolster Romney's flagging chances in Florida. While Ohio is probably the state Romney needs help in even more, Rubio seems like a good combination of "swing state bump + tea party-ness + inspiration for middle of the road folks" that makes him superior to Portman. Portman also kinda looks like the guy who got beat up in elementary school.
Media says the short list was Ryan, Rubio, Pawlenty, Christie, Portman and one unnamed wild card (probably Petraeus).
Ryan is supposed to be a pick that tries to combine both the GOP establishment and Tea Party conservatives, which hopefully means the Republican Party is looking to go more towards its fiscally conservative, small government roots while doing the absolute bare minimum to keep social conservatives in the loop.
Rubio is a good pick but I think they're saving him in the bullpen for a national campaign later (rather than risk burning him out like Palin). It's worth pointing out that Hispanics have been pretty much not caught any traction at all with Romney. Even though they're a socially conservative group, their overriding concerns are social policy and immigration, and they hate Romney's positions on those. Obama is going to win 60+% of the Hispanic vote and Rubio can't make a big enough difference in the less than 90 days left.
If we're talking signals, I think this means Romney is very serious about dealing almost entirely with tax policy, budgets, and economics. Which I personally think is a good idea. The GOP can't get any good angles to attack Obama on foreign policy (Romney wouldn't do anything differently) and social policies like gay marriage are a losing argument for Romney, who isn't conservative enough for social conservatives and isn't liberal enough for liberals (or even if he is, those liberals will never vote GOP and just criticize him).
|
On August 11 2012 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral. Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works. The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power.
You're living in la-la land.
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=9pg)
Tax cuts generating a massive increase in growth... that worked out well for Bush.
|
On August 11 2012 22:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral. Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works. The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power. You're living in la-la land. Tax cuts generating a massive increase in growth... that worked out well for Bush.
He was being sarcastic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so between bat shit crazy and really fucking crazy, what a decision to be made for the vp
|
On August 11 2012 22:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2012 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral. Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works. The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power. You're living in la-la land. Tax cuts generating a massive increase in growth... that worked out well for Bush. He was being sarcastic.
With the current Republican party you can really never know LOL
|
On August 11 2012 22:53 oneofthem wrote:
so between bat shit crazy and really fucking crazy, what a decision to be made for the vp
If that's what you call him what is Biden lul?
|
On August 11 2012 22:55 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:52 coverpunch wrote:On August 11 2012 22:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2012 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 11 2012 22:27 Adila wrote:
Well, maybe now we'll get more specifics on how Ryan's plan will be revenue neutral. Didnt they already answer this? with an 8% economic growth the plan works. The fact that were in the middle of a global depression is just a matter of inconvience that will instantly vanish once Romney comes to power. You're living in la-la land. Tax cuts generating a massive increase in growth... that worked out well for Bush. He was being sarcastic. With the current Republican party you can really never know LOL
I was being sarcastic yes. There is no Republican plan for the economy other then to fill there own pockets with taxcuts.
As for the 8%. ofc its impossible but that was the argument made by Romney staff when this plan came out and was classed as bullshit by everyone.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On August 11 2012 22:56 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:53 oneofthem wrote:
so between bat shit crazy and really fucking crazy, what a decision to be made for the vp If that's what you call him what is Biden lul? some old guy
|
On August 11 2012 22:56 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 22:53 oneofthem wrote:
so between bat shit crazy and really fucking crazy, what a decision to be made for the vp If that's what you call him what is Biden lul?
Pretty moderate, and very experienced?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i believe i just read this sentence somewhere,
"rather than risk burning him out like Palin"
i mean holy shit palin as a political resource. absolutely shameful
|
On August 11 2012 15:00 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 14:58 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 14:31 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 14:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2012 14:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Can you explain the thinking behind that position? I don't really understand. Is it because of demographic that is skewed in terms of military-related employment? The military is the most respected government institution in the country. Among conservatives, there is a very strong sense of patriotism, if not outright nationalism. We want a strong military, we like knowing that our troops are the best in the world, and we want to keep it that way. Do you have a recommended way to dissuade people from this absurd ideology? edit: I mean, I feel like we already had ww1, it was fun and all, but more of that? name one powerful empire in the history of the world that got it's status without a renown military. one. go. I'm kinda against the whole "powerful empire" thing
Have you heard of the Pax Americana? The idea is basically that now that America (previous America and Soviet Union) is the only superpower, only America can realistically declare war. Having superpowers is actually a great way to generate peace. It would be anarchy to have no superpower, and you'd probably have more wars.
Without America, China would take the reigns and impose it's view on the world. It would be the one declaring war to suit national interest, and in many ways that would be more frightening than the Pax Americana.
I like having a reasonably large military (I do think it's too large right now). But more importantly, we shouldn't be war-hungry or grandstanding. We should only use the military with righteous authority, none of this 'bullying' crap. Being an authority figure means that you actually have to earn your authority, or else people just hate you (like the way they do now).
|
On August 11 2012 21:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:On August 11 2012 20:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 11 2012 18:38 Edlina wrote:
I'm going off the recent topic of Ryan as VP candidate and the proposals he and Romney have made - tax decrease = overall revenue increase is a ridiculous notion in all or almost all circumstances and certainly it's ridiculous with the current US taxes.
However, what I really wanted to know is, if someone could explain to me why the US system, to date, is set up in a way where 'the winner takes it all' in each State. I mean it's not very representative of Florida or Ohio, or any other State for that matter, that all of such State's delegates (or what they are called) go to a candidate whom fx obtain 51% of the votes...even the primary elections only function like this in a few certain States - no?
So why is it that way at the Presidential election - it seems to neglect all of the votes of huge voter groups in States where a party looses in a close race to the other party. Its even worse then that. Duo to this system and the way delegates are structured its possible for a President to be chosen with less votes then the runner up. The problem is that this system is designed to keep those with power in power. It ensures that Democrats and Republicans are the only parties able to gain power and they will never give that up. Yes... The delegate system totally can't be an aftermath of a democracy set up in a world where travel and information moved at a not-instant speed. No, it isn't to accomodate democracy by mitigating the month-long travel times, it is an evil conspiracy by Dem's and Rep's to control the nation. I can't find my remote, I wonder if the Illuminati has anything to do with it. Travel time has absolutely nothing to do with the winner takes all system. The guy made a comment how if a state is won 49-51 the 49% is utterly ignored because the 51 gets all the delegates instead of splitting them as per vote percentages.
Ahhh, but then we are getting into the field of mandate distribution (which europeans have been thundering about for ages): It is inherently unfair to make a winner takes it all since it favours the preelection assignment of nominees for 80+% of the population (red state, blue state, nothing inbetween). A mandate representation is the only way to make each vote worth more in the coloured states (the more mandates, the greater the resolution and the greater the value of each vote!). The mandates does not even have to be real people in the primaries since they are just a way of assigning value to votes.
In Denmark and Netherlands (among about 26 other democracies) we see a D'hondt system of assigning mandates and it gets to be a good distribution for the majority parties even though it basically is direct percentage assignment.
Sainte-Laguë is an improvement for the minorities and is therefore far less used. Denmark (Yes, Denmark uses both for every general election! It is obviously extremely complicated to find a winner of an election), Germany, Sweden and Norway are examples of countries using it.
In US primaries it is a more or less a random system of mandate distribution depending on the state and party.
In terms of primaries, USA is fortunately moving away from winner takes it all and caucases to higher resolution techniques. Now it only needs to happen in the house of representation elections too and US is on its way to becoming a modern democracy!
|
On August 11 2012 23:38 radiatoren wrote:
Ahhh, but then we are getting into the field of mandate distribution (which europeans have been thundering about for ages): It is inherently unfair to make a winner takes it all since it favours the preelection assignment of nominees for 80+% of the population (red state, blue state, nothing inbetween). A mandate representation is the only way to make each vote worth more in the coloured states (the more mandates, the greater the resolution and the greater the value of each vote!). The mandates does not even have to be real people in the primaries since they are just a way of assigning value to votes.
In Denmark and Netherlands (among about 26 other democracies) we see a D'hondt system of assigning mandates and it gets to be a good distribution for the majority parties even though it basically is direct percentage assignment.
Sainte-Laguë is an improvement for the minorities and is therefore far less used. Denmark (Yes, Denmark uses both for every general election! It is obviously extremely complicated to find a winner of an election), Germany, Sweden and Norway are examples of countries using it.
In US primaries it is a more or less a random system of mandate distribution depending on the state and party.
In terms of primaries, USA is fortunately moving away from winner takes it all and caucases to higher resolution techniques. Now it only needs to happen in the house of representation elections too and US is on its way to becoming a modern democracy!
I agree that this is a problem, however the two most likely changes that have been put on ballots in the US don't make the system better.
One is to split the electoral votes by congressional district, the way Maine and Nebraska do already. The problem here is that our districts are extremely gerrymandered so whichever party most recently drew the maps will have an enormous advantage.
The other is to split the electoral votes by proportion, rounding to the nearest vote. This was proposed in Colorado back in 2004, but the ballot measure was defeated. The problem with this is - say a state is worth 3 electoral votes. In most circumstances, it will split 2-1. A state worth 4 electoral votes will split 2-2 in most circumstances. A state worth 5 will split 3-2, a state worth 6 will split 3-3. Only the really large (or extremely partisan) states will deviate from this. That makes it valuable to win the states with an odd number of electoral votes, and worthless to win a state worth an even number of electoral votes.
Going to a direct popular vote doesn't seem that likely, since such changes are far easier to block than to implement.
|
On August 11 2012 23:54 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 23:38 radiatoren wrote:
Ahhh, but then we are getting into the field of mandate distribution (which europeans have been thundering about for ages): It is inherently unfair to make a winner takes it all since it favours the preelection assignment of nominees for 80+% of the population (red state, blue state, nothing inbetween). A mandate representation is the only way to make each vote worth more in the coloured states (the more mandates, the greater the resolution and the greater the value of each vote!). The mandates does not even have to be real people in the primaries since they are just a way of assigning value to votes.
In Denmark and Netherlands (among about 26 other democracies) we see a D'hondt system of assigning mandates and it gets to be a good distribution for the majority parties even though it basically is direct percentage assignment.
Sainte-Laguë is an improvement for the minorities and is therefore far less used. Denmark (Yes, Denmark uses both for every general election! It is obviously extremely complicated to find a winner of an election), Germany, Sweden and Norway are examples of countries using it.
In US primaries it is a more or less a random system of mandate distribution depending on the state and party.
In terms of primaries, USA is fortunately moving away from winner takes it all and caucases to higher resolution techniques. Now it only needs to happen in the house of representation elections too and US is on its way to becoming a modern democracy! I agree that this is a problem, however the two most likely changes that have been put on ballots in the US don't make the system better. One is to split the electoral votes by congressional district, the way Maine and Nebraska do already. The problem here is that our districts are extremely gerrymandered so whichever party most recently drew the maps will have an enormous advantage. The other is to split the electoral votes by proportion, rounding to the nearest vote. This was proposed in Colorado back in 2004, but the ballot measure was defeated. The problem with this is - say a state is worth 3 electoral votes. In most circumstances, it will split 2-1. A state worth 4 electoral votes will split 2-2 in most circumstances. A state worth 5 will split 3-2, a state worth 6 will split 3-3. Only the really large (or extremely partisan) states will deviate from this. That makes it valuable to win the states with an odd number of electoral votes, and worthless to win a state worth an even number of electoral votes. Going to a direct popular vote doesn't seem that likely, since such changes are far easier to block than to implement.
See but that just shows the underlying problem with American elections. If most states would go 50-50 then are are currently excluding the opinion of a little under half your population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
