EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 909
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote: dem agricultural subsidies for terrible carbon footprint ethanol operations. wonderful don't be silly, you know what I think about that. the point remains however. Right now rural areas have disproportionate power and that's why our country is stuck in the 19th century. Doesn't necessarily mean you fix that by committing the same mistake the other way. shrug | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:08 sam!zdat wrote: don't be silly, you know what I think about that. the point remains however. Right now rural areas have disproportionate power and that's why our country is stuck in the 19th century. Doesn't necessarily mean you fix that by committing the same mistake the other way. shrug Those damn rural proles are ruining this for everyone..... | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:01 Quintum_ wrote: Assuming you live in a small state i understand why you like the power that the EC gives you but it is not fair. I can understand if you are going to argue logistics as switching to popular vote would be a massive undertaking to make sure it gets done right. But states like TX and CA should be the deciders in the president cause that is where a huge majority of the population is. The "fairness" argument doesn't work. That the Electoral College is apportioned by population means that the larger states do have a larger say in who becomes president. That they are not currently in play doesn't mean that they aren't getting their fair say. This is one of our protections as a Democratic Republic as opposed to a straight democracy in making sure that minority views get heard. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 20 2012 06:54 sam!zdat wrote: So Ohio deciding is better? meh. popular elections of president is a stupid idea no matter how you slice it edit: before the "samizdat hates freedom" comments start coming in, you should realize there's nothing in your holy constitution says you get to have a popular election for president Ohio has more in common with me than CA. So yeah, I'm ok with that. It's also worth noting that it is always moderate states being the swing states. I think it's a good thing we have that, otherwise we'd have Nancy Pelosi as our president, and NOBODY wants that. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 20 2012 06:48 Probe1 wrote: Your posts are bias'd to your own side sc2superfan101 . I don't know how you can't see that interfering with how others receive and evaluate your opinions. Let's take an example of myself. If I were to say (all of this is true): "I am a registered independent. I always have been and I always will be. However, the day I vote for a Republican candidate in these days of neocon bullshit is the day I want to sign over my freedom and inalienable rights." Now how do you think people are going to view that? That's what I think, it's true. But I don't present myself that way. Why? Because.. well no shit on this one but I have respect for others opinions. By that I mean I believe I am not always right and I should listen to dissent. Having an obnoxiously staunch and 'partisan' opinion is like sticking your fingers in your ears when someone says they like butter pecan ice cream and screaming CHOCOLATE! until they leave. Have some common sense, I've got plenty laying around you can borrow. everyone's posts are "bias'd to [their] own side". there is no one on Earth that believes that their opinions and beliefs are wrong, so everyone is going to assume that they are right. we can base this assumption on evidence, but even then, the bias still exists, it is just a supported bias. how others view my positions is largely up to them. I may bear some responsibility, namely to couch my positions in truthful, ethical, and (relatively) friendly ways. however, once achieved, all the responsibility for the reaction of the reader/listener belongs squarely and wholly to that aforementioned spectator. I cannot hope to change the way they think by myself, with no effort or desire on their part. and I cannot hope to convince them of the validity of my own positions if they will not be convinced. (note that I am not condemning anyone or any action. I, myself, do not have any desire to change my basic positions, will put no effort into changing them, and will most likely not be convinced). it is the height of dishonesty for someone to say: "I am not partisan. So my opinions are valid. You are partisan though, so your positions are invalid." as such, I have no fear or problem with admitting my own partisanship, and admitting that this partisanship does, to some degree, color the glass through which I view the world. sure, it makes me easy prey to someone who wants to be dishonest, but anyone who has an opinion, is partisan. anyone who claims different, is being untruthful. those who are truthful will admit their own partisanship and bias, and won't try to hide it from the people they are arguing with or trying to convince. now, it seems your main argument (in spirit) is not that you are better for hiding your obvious bias, but that in some weird way, that because you hide it, it doesn't exist. to this, I can only say that a game of peek-a-boo doesn't usually involve someone actually disappearing and reappearing. likewise, hiding this opinion: the day I vote for a Republican candidate in these days of neocon bullshit is the day I want to sign over my freedom and inalienable rights. doesn't change the fact that the opinion exists. hiding it doesn't give you some extra ability to gauge and respond to dissent or criticism of your political position. and it doesn't make it have any less of an effect upon your voting, thinking, and perceiving. now, we can argue all day about who has the more open mind, or whether having an open mind to nonsense is desirable, much less rational; but the main argument we should be having is whether a partisan who is convinced of the superiority of his own arguments, not obstinately but with conviction, is capable of engaging in rational discourse. I would suggest that one who holds no firm positions can have no firm arguments. the key, it would seem, (to borrow a quote from W.F. Buckley Jr.) is "to be flexible without resembling Silly-Putty: to be principled without being arch" obviously, you can make some argument that you are firmly in the middle ground. and I, without being able to preview the inner depths of your mind and soul, am woefully incapable of challenging that argument with anything other than your own admission of bias. you can make the argument that I am so stubborn that I resemble the childish figure in your analogy, and I, without being able to open to you the depths of my mind, am incapable of challenging that argument except with that fact that I ignore no (legitimately made) point that I see, but address any and all with equal gusto. let those who watch be the judges, but realize that judgement should most probably be reserved for those with no, how shall I say, dog in the hunt. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:17 BluePanther wrote: that's because if they weren't moderate they'd swung already. it's not rocket science Ohio has more in common with me than CA. So yeah, I'm ok with that. It's also worth noting that it is always moderate states being the swing states. I think it's a good thing we have that, otherwise we'd have Nancy Pelosi as our president, and NOBODY wants that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:16 ey215 wrote: The "fairness" argument doesn't work. That the Electoral College is apportioned by population means that the larger states do have a larger say in who becomes president. That they are not currently in play doesn't mean that they aren't getting their fair say. This is one of our protections as a Democratic Republic as opposed to a straight democracy in making sure that minority views get heard. it's not states that have a say, it's people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop_per_elector.png | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:26 oneofthem wrote: it's not states that have a say, it's people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop_per_elector.png Where? Certainly not here? We're a Republic. The states are Democracies. That means the states get a fair say. | ||
|
Quintum_
United States669 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:16 ey215 wrote: The "fairness" argument doesn't work. That the Electoral College is apportioned by population means that the larger states do have a larger say in who becomes president. That they are not currently in play doesn't mean that they aren't getting their fair say. This is one of our protections as a Democratic Republic as opposed to a straight democracy in making sure that minority views get heard. The fairness argument does work though. The EC is proven to be unfair. I understand it augment i am not going to win though. No one is going to want to give up the power they have. New Hampshire with its little over a million in pop has gotten more time put in it in the president race then CA with its 37 mil and Texas with is 25 mil combined. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:29 urashimakt wrote: Where? Certainly not here? We're a Republic. The states are Democracies. That means the states get a fair say. you are not forced to live under any arrangement. all is politics. it can be changed | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
The main concern I have with the electoral college is that it generates a lot of voter apathy. Like A LOT of voter apathy. That doesn't seem good for a democracy. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:34 oneofthem wrote: you are not forced to live under any arrangement. all is politics. it can be changed As a liberal Californian, I welcome any attempt. Good luck and godspeed. On October 20 2012 07:36 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno the electoral college doesn't seem to favor democrats or republicans. I mean isn't Romney leading popular vote? The main concern I have with the electoral college is that it generates a lot of voter apathy. Like A LOT of voter apathy. That doesn't seem good for a democracy. Won't know until it happens, but 538 predicts the popular vote and EC will go the same way (currently Obama). | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:26 oneofthem wrote: it's not states that have a say, it's people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop_per_elector.png many states electors arent legally bound to follower the voters wishes. the american people dont vote for president, the states do. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:16 ey215 wrote: The "fairness" argument doesn't work. That the Electoral College is apportioned by population means that the larger states do have a larger say in who becomes president. That they are not currently in play doesn't mean that they aren't getting their fair say. This is one of our protections as a Democratic Republic as opposed to a straight democracy in making sure that minority views get heard. It's kind of ironic that the "minority views" in question here comprise the views of very few racial minorities, though  | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:01 Quintum_ wrote: Assuming you live in a small state i understand why you like the power that the EC gives you but it is not fair. I can understand if you are going to argue logistics as switching to popular vote would be a massive undertaking to make sure it gets done right. But states like TX and CA should be the deciders in the president cause that is where a huge majority of the population is. The electoral college doesn't favor small states. No one gives a shit about the Dakotas or Vermont. The electoral college favors the largest of the states that have the potential of going either way. Being an Ohioan, when it comes to the presidential election, my vote matters a hell of a lot more than that of anyone from Montana. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:31 Quintum_ wrote: The fairness argument does work though. The EC is proven to be unfair. I understand it augment i am not going to win though. No one is going to want to give up the power they have. New Hampshire with its little over a million in pop has gotten more time put in it in the president race then CA with its 37 mil and Texas with is 25 mil combined. well I hope that we can at least agree that this assertion would certainly depend entirely on one's personal standard of what constitutes "fairness". I would assert that it is the height of unfairness to suggest that any minority should be eternally marginalized, with never a hint of representation, simply because they are a minority. or that the majority should have all the representation, simply because they are a majority. California has it's say every election. every election since 1992, CA has offered the Democrats 50+ electoral votes. TX has offered it's own 30+ electoral votes every election since 1992 to the Republicans. I am a conservative Republican who lives in CA. my Republican vote will never, in the foreseeable future, be represented in CA's electoral vote. I am fine with this, because my vote does count, it just didn't win. The Democrat in TX has the same assurance, that his vote may not win, but will count. there is, as far as I know, no state that I know of where the loser of the popular vote within the state is the loser of the electoral vote (perhaps someone else could research this further?). If the voters of CA and TX want more money spent in their states, or more politician attention during the campaign, than they should not be so uniform in their opinions. you can rest assured that if CA, with it's 55 electoral votes (or TX with it's 38), were battleground states, that New Hampshire would receive much less attention. it's not about population, it's about political uniformity. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 20 2012 07:53 Mindcrime wrote: The electoral college doesn't favor small states. No one gives a shit about the Dakotas or Vermont. The electoral college favors the largest of the states that have the potential of going either way. Being an Ohioan, when it comes to the presidential election, my vote matters a hell of a lot more than that of anyone from Montana. just because ohio is 'the' state that decides the election does not mean the EC doesnt favor small states. it gives small state voters more power per person than large state voters. the only reason ohio is so important is because its the largest of the swing states, thats not actually anything to do with the problems with EC. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
| ||
