The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Democratic Debates: Round 4 (The Youtube Debate)
Posts
Yeah, but the difference is, I agree with this megalomanic retard rather than the one currently in power.
In my crazy liberal world, a Kucinich/Gravel ticket would be unstoppable. In the real one, I full well acknowledge that at this point, Joe Biden seems to me to be the best candidate. Obama falters in debates, Clinton can fuck off for all I care (not owning up to being a liberal? What the hell?), and Edwards is losing ground based on his stance on gay marriage amongst other things.
If by unstoppable you mean wouldn't be able to get anything done and just putz around for 4 years while the country reels. Yeah, I could see that with them in the white house.
Whenever someone uses it I just think of how great the experience level was on Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld's resumes and how wonderful that experienced leadership turned out.
So what if she prefers to be called a progressive than a liberal? It's a smart political move because liberal is a dirty word in American politics. I'd rather evaluate her as an overall package (and I agree with Shinto, she's the best in either party) rather than on a throwaway sound bite.
No offense but my friend Shithead McGee with his 2 years of high school Democrat leadership might not be the best guy for the job!
And Cheney has been very open since day one about wanting to make a dictatorship.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Thank goodness he isn't a charicature with inexperience being his only endearing quality. Particularly since experience does not inherintly lead into good presidential skills. At the less esoteric hypotheticals and for Hillary specifically, I suppose that her experience is, since it is relevant to the Presidency. We'd be electing her to a 3rd term in office, afterall.
Yeah, I completely agree. That is a stupid knock on Obama.
The dislike of Hillary can be so moronic that I steadily find myself drawn to defend her.
Thank you. Exactly.
And how much research was that? He's done a hell of a lot for a junior minority senator. Plus he's a pretty damn skilled orator. I haven't heard many of the other candidates speak, but he's got more charisma and can play to a crow better than a large number of them. Hillary being an exception. I'd say Biden, but that's hit or miss with the whole foot in mouth disease he's got.
I dunno.....all of my friends who have seen him have been impressed. He's very good behind a podium but probably better face to face or in small groups. I don't think he's as good a debater as advertised but as a public speaker, he's pretty impressive.
That said, Hillary is pretty impressive as well. She stumbles a bit at making a close personal connection with her audience but her substance is usually spot on. One of my gf's friends worked for her and said that she is amazing in person, though a bit scary at times
Yeah, but he's still a damn shy better than most all of the politicians I've ever heard. Granted that isn't too difficult, my 4 month old cousins can top Byrd, but it's still a rather nice trait to have when you're seeking such a visible high office.
Fuck yeah.
Its passed in the house, probable pass in the state senate - we'll know soon - and the governor is a democrat.
Yeah, fuck those morons and their attempts to make election results more closely reflect voter intent!
What, do I have to draw you a picture?
Under ordinary rules, whichever candidate receives a plurality of the popular vote wins 100% of the electoral vote. So, for instance, if the Republican wins 45%, and the Democrat wins 44%, and various third parties gobble up the remaining 11%, then the Republican gets all of the electoral votes.
Under a proportional system, the Republican and Democrat would win essentially equal numbers of electoral votes, with a couple getting thrown to the third parties, assuming any single one of them got a large enough percentage.
That sure sounds like a more equitable result to me.
That's beside the point, though, since what you're talking about is a proportional system on a national scale; what we're talking about here is one state going from "I have to win another 5% in that state to get 15 electoral votes" to "I have to win another 5% in that state to get 1 electoral vote." Guess which one is worth worrying about?
Uh. I was never talking about a proportional system on a national scale. I was talking about a proportional system on a state-by-state basis.
I'm also unsure of how "oh noes the dems/reps woud lose" is a valid argument against such a system.
I really don't see how this would decrease the attention of a candidate on any particular state. They tend to focus on the states that have the most electoral votes in any event. It's not as though Wyoming or West Virginia are particular hotspots on the campaign trail.
Also, I would consider that this is the only way that a third-party candidate would have any reasonable chance of winning.
In any case, all switching to an electoral system like this would do would be to give the smaller states more power, proportionally speaking. Because of those 2 senatorial votes, I'm going to get 2 votes out of Wyoming as a Republican, period, no question. And that 51% stays just as important, because in states with odd numbers of electoral votes, that means one less vote for your opponent, and one more vote for you. Would even states split evenly if they were close to 50%, or would an extra vote go to the person who got more votes?
Then, we come to states like California, where, right now, if you get a majority, it's a huge deal. You desperately want California to vote for you if you're running for president. Unfortunately, Bush has so thoroughly screwed over California that the odds of a Republican winning the state anytime in the next 50 years or so are... less than optimal (unless we amend the Constitution so that Ah-nold can run).
I mean, really, all those little, tiny, Republican-leaning states will be giving 60% plus of their electoral votes to Republicans, simply for the Republicans winning 51%, whereas the big states will be giving 51% of their votes to Democrats, just because they have so many to go around.
Really, if you want to talk about a good system for electing the president, direct election is the way to go. It's simple, and direct.
I fail to see what the interent has to do with this.
A soldiers duty is not to win the hearts ad mind of the populace. That is the work of politicians.