The Reason Why The Republicans Could Win the 2008 Election

Pretty sad that that is never going to happen

Yes. Maine and Nebraska. IIRC, they have something like 9 votes to split among them combined (and they virtually never do), so not really the same impact.

True, but people's definitions of "benefit me the most" vary.

I was reading about this a week or so ago on MediaMatters.org. I liked the way they put it, that the GOP is playing Constitutional Calvinball.



Calvinball being the game from Calvin & Hobbes, the idea being that "The only permanent rule in Calvinball is that you can't play it the same way twice Players alter rules throughout the game in a constant effort to gain an advantage."

And as Calvin and MediaMatters.org put it, this...



"lends itself to certain abuses."

That is the best description of politics I have ever read.

The simple solution is to let the "mob rule". Fuck the antiquated electoral college with a thorn-studded 10 inch dildo. Every vote across the country should be tabulated and the most popular candidate wins. If we're only electing one person to "rule" the whole country, we should vote as a whole instead of having states haphazardly divvying our "representative" votes as they see fit. Shouldn't each person's vote be weighted against the system instead of the reverse? Another great idea would be to implement run-off elections so there can't be any spoil sport candidates to "muddy" the election process. So-called "top tier" candidates would still have to prove themselves against others in the first run election, then before the final voting there could be more consensus among voting blocks while "coalition building" with third-parties would allow them to become real players in national politics (instead of the wet blankets they end up as).

IMO, winner takes all smells like shit no matter how you slice it, there will always be under represented people within a democracy (or was that under counted)?

[INSERT MARXIST QUOTE HERE]

Precisely. This is all just a new phase in the power battle between small states and large states that has been going on since 1787.

Popular elections would fuck small states. they wouldn't even get visits from candidates. Actually most rural areas wouldn't get visits, all candidates would need to do is to focus on the major MSAs to win elections.

It is the United STATES of America, not the people's republic. It is a Union of STATES, not people.

I'm not convinced that any of the above attenuates any of the problems inherent in the Electoral College, nor am I at all convinced that those rural areas/small states/etc would not continue to be visited by candidates, especially during the primary process. Moreover, those STATES would continue to have their Constitutionally designated representation in Congress.

Yeah. I get that.

No, it was clearly intentional. That doesn't make it necessary or a good thing.

I know you are not that much of an optimist.

First of all we are rapidly devolving into one or two superprimaries after which all other states are essentially disenfranchised and second, do you really think that candidates are going to spend time eating burgers in Bumfuck, Idaho if they don't have to? That is not a trend I see following from any of this.

We already are into stage managed presentations in carefully construed venues that maximize photo-ops for the 6:00 news and USA Today. If we had general elections there would simply be no need to spend money on travel all over the country when TV and print ads in major MSAs would turn the trick.

I think the electoral college works exactly the way that it was intended, which is as a check on the "people" in favor of the locally elected legislatures in their own states and a balanced (in terms of population) process for the national scale.

I am suspicious of populist approaches to governance as they are generally platforms for demogogary. Frankly, given the general irrationality of the American voter (we have turned shooting ourselves in the foot into the national pastime), I am pretty happy with checks on the "people's will."

First of all, you already have candidates wholly ignoring states during the general election campaign. Kerry made (if I recall correctly) a grand total of 2-3 visits to California during the 2004 election because he knew he had the state locked up. Bush made one. I'm sure the same thing happened in reverse in Texas. Instead, they spent virtually every day in "battleground" states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida at the expense of other states where the vote was basically decided (small states like Rhode Island, for example, which was obviously going to vote Kerry or Idaho which was obviously going to vote Bush.) So your "Oh the poor small states" hypothetical is unpersuasive because it's happening already, but not just to small states but to big ones as well.

Under a popular vote, they would have to fight for every vote because they would need to ensure that their margins of victory in each state are as high as they possibly can be. In "battleground" states, they'll do the same.

Secondly, I really don't give a fuck if they spend time in Bumblefuck Idaho because no one fucking lives in Bumblefuck Idaho. I'd much rather candidates attempt to actually address the concerns of a majority of its citizenry. Yeah, you'll have something of a tyranny of the metropolitan areas (though I doubt it will be to the extent that you're making it out to be because the small states will still very much matter in the primary and to those candidates who count on rural areas as their political base), but I'm OK with that considering we now have a tyranny of the battleground states. I'm not saying it's going to be a perfect solution. It's clearly not. It's just a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

This, factoring in the law of unintended consequences, is highly debatable. Particularly considering that the current system has provided for an orderly transfer of power for 230 years (something quite unique in the history of the world.)

I understand your frustration, I just think you are in danger of pitching the baby out with the bathwater. I am by no means a traditionalist, I simply don't think that what you propose provides the same benefits, while really overcoming any of the problems.

And I'm by no means a populist. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

And of course here is another reason the democrats could lose the election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_spanish_debate

Nothing like stirring up anti immigrant fears of your party by holding a primary in a foreign language and catering to a people that most Americans are xenophobic about. It's like the dems want to lose this one too.

Wait... the anti-immigrant fears of the Democratic Party?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about here?

It happens, but not often.

What he's getting at is the idea that the Democrats will lose the general election because they're not anti-immigrant enough.

It's a dubious proposal at best, of course. Those votes are already lost to any Democrat, and to any Republican with a sense of humanity and decency. And I for one am not so[]/i] cynical about the American people that I think the xenophobe vote will be decisive.

I get that idea, when you're talking about the 'moderate' undecided voters. I didn't get that from what Colinism said. He seemed to be referring to a faction of anti-immigrant Democrats; a small minority (if it can even be considered such) and quite irrelevant.

I guess what he said could be interpreted that way, at that - and was probably his intention. It was just so nonsensical it actually flew under my radar.

No Zarth is correct, I was not referring to some sort of anti immigrant democratic faction, I was more referring to moderate and undecided voters who may have anti immigrant sentiment that may or should have voted democratic now instead voting for the republicans. IMO it makes the dems look like they are catering to special interests and not the general public at large. This should be the time for the democrats to try and appeal to as broad a spectrum of people as possible, without seeming to cater to each on an individual basis. I am afraid they are once again trying to appeal to every group individually and get them all under their tent it simply does not work that way, there are too many democratic factions that disagree. For example unions are very anti immigrant as they see Mexicans as lost union jobs, so holding a whole debate in spanish to cater to Mexicans (at least how it will probably be spun) seems to me to be a stupid move that will end up costing them in the end. Hispanic voters are and have traditionaly had very low turnouts and relying on their support is shaky at best.

I am sure my post will probably seem even more confusingthan my last one and I am sorry I will be more than happy to come back and clear up any misunderstandings that arise.

First of all, there are no anti-immigrant "moderates." Anyone who's going to freak out over something like this isn't going to vote Democratic, and very likely might not even vote Republican. Secondly, you're confusing a lot of issues there. So many I literally don't even know where to start.

God, the Democrats are so dumb for not going pandering to the xenophobic wingnut voter! They'll never carry Texas this way.

But we'll never win without being uniters instead of dividers!

*Side note*

Run-off elections in America would be useless because you need more than three candidates for them to be effective. And by more than 3, I mean more than 3 viable candidates. Viable beign defines as able to get even 1 fucking electoral college vote! And it is boderline at best to suggest that either Ross Perot or Ralph Nader were viable, even using a different definition. A run-off election in 2000 would not have given gore the presidency. and a run off election in 1992 may have given Bush a 2nd term.

As for the EC, it really does work, no candidate ever gets more than 50% of the vote and this is the best we can do right now. There are two alternatives, both of which need to be done en mass and not piecemeal to be effective, which just won't happen.

1) the Cali plan. (2 ec votes to the state winner, rest got to district winner) It would work, but instead of swing states there would be swing districts and an even larger number of people would be disenfranchised than the current sustem. Because you have swing districts the candidates would be fighting over the equivalent of an Ohio or FLorida instead of fighting over Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Another downside: District gerrymandering would get 10x worse. It already is a major issue (and has been for decades, the term was originated because mass-hole politicians a long time ago)

2) The MD plan (all vtoes go to popular vote winner) The problem is how do you justify giving the presidency to someone that wins only 48% of the popular vote? We do it now because of the electoral college, the winner does get more than 50% of the EC votes. But what is the governing principal here? Plurality rules? Would we be comfortable in a real 3 person race if the winner got less than 45% of the popular vote? How about less than 40%? Yes the same issue could arrise with the current system but the reality is that the winner would take enough big states to have some justification or mandate for winning. But that is also a small likelyhood of occuring (a 3 person race under current rules where the winner has less than the required number of EC votes to win, and when it does. it goes to congress.)

All I am saying is that any change needs to be rolled out on a large scale (anything Cali does Texas must do, at the very least) and that we need to carefully look at our alternatives and compare them to the current system. The current system may stink, but in my opinion the alternatives stink worse.

Do I detect a tone of mockery in your voice? Really, if Kerry showed the Dems anything, it's that in order to placate the attack ads, it's best to swing as far to the center of the political spectrum as possible

That's some serious shit. Thanks for the heads up.