2012 US Elections, Continued

[digitize]

The old thread is nearing 1000 posts, so let's start anew.

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate?
It appears that Democratic candidates for the House actually got more votes than Republican candidates, but, partially because 2010 was such a strong year for the GOP, Republicans got away with absolutely ridiculous gerrymandering and won the House off of that. Does Boehner really deserve to talk about a mandate?

[deep]

one more example of why the Electoral College serves no purpose but to possibly put the loser in the Whitehouse.

California has about 35,000,000 people, that is considerably larger than the United States of the Founders that wrote the Constitution, should the Governor of any large state, CA, TX, FL, NY not be determined by the popular vote? But, some arcane vote distribution to counties, that way counties with very small populations won't be bullied by counties where all the people live. Forget that state residents in all counties pay the same rate on taxes, and also have to obey the same laws.

Nevada has 17 counties, Let's divide the vote into 17 districts, and assign electors to those counties that does not reflect the exact populations.

Nevada population by County for total residents


Would anyone support this? The EC college is just as legit.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by deep

one more example of why the Electoral College serves no purpose but to possibly put the loser in the Whitehouse.

California has about 35,000,000 people, that is considerably larger than the United States of the Founders that wrote the Constitution, should the Governor of any large state, CA, TX, FL, NY not be determined by the popular vote? But, some arcane vote distribution to counties, that way counties with very small populations won't be bullied by counties where all the people live. Forget that state residents in all counties pay the same rate on taxes, and also have to obey the same laws.

Nevada has 17 counties, Let's divide the vote into 17 districts, and assign electors to those counties that does not reflect the exact populations.

Nevada population by County for total residents


Would anyone support this? The EC college is just as legit.

We should have an Electoral College in each state, for the electors to the national Electoral College!

[Pearl]

Bill Bishop, author of the book “The Big Sort” on the growing polarization of American politics, said, “There are mores states that have tipped either increasingly Republican or Democratic over time. Even in close elections you have a majority of voters who live in counties where the election wasn’t close at all. The world they see at their doorstep is different than the rest of the country.”

Democrats reclaimed majorities they had lost in 2010 in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the Minnesota House and Senate. They also took control of the Colorado House, the Oregon House, the Maine House and Senate and the New York Senate, for a total of eight pick-ups.
In addition to the Arkansas sweep, Republicans could point to only one other pick-up, but it was a satisfying one: the Wisconsin state Senate, where Democrats enjoyed a brief majority as a result of a number of recall elections this summer. GOP officials said the final tally was not as bad as it could have been, considering the defeat of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the party’s weak showing in U.S. Senate races.
“Clearly, [Election Day] was not what Republicans were hoping for, but we remain encouraged by the successes seen at the state level across the country,” Republican State Leadership Committee President Chris Jankowski said in a statement as the final returns were rolling in.
“One thing remains clear — Republicans are the dominant party in the states holding a majority of state legislatures, governorships, lieutenant governorships, secretaries of state and half of the nation’s attorneys general.”

Rising number of states seeing one-party rule - Washington Times

Honestly, I really don't see the polarization in this country easing any time soon. I do wish it would happen, but I really think it will only get worse and worse.

[deep]

Originally Posted by digitize

We should have an Electoral College in each state, for the electors to the national Electoral College!

I assume you are joking

because no state would want thier Govonor or Senators not elected, chosen by a direct vote of the whole state.

again, in case anyone is not aware, the Constitution did not provide for Senators to be chosen by the people voting them into office

it took 90 years of reasonable people making the argument before it became the law of the land.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the federal government contained representatives of the states, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress".[1] However, over time various perceived issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.

Reformers tabled constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a "runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress. It was passed by the Congress and on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[deep]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Rising number of states seeing one-party rule - Washington Times

Honestly, I really don't see the polarization in this country easing any time soon. I do wish it would happen, but I really think it will only get worse and worse.

but here is an interesting fact, in solid red or blue states
the opposition party can win statewide elections, there have been Democrats elected to State houses in Ut, TX, and some of the Southern states. CA has been a blue state my whole life, we have had quite a few Republican governors. NY has had GOP Govs, too. How many of these Dem Senate wins were in GOP states?

[ladyfreckles]

I don't have much to say on the electoral college but I will say this: there are plenty of times that the majority of the state is one party, but the opposite party wins, and it's actually better for the state. This applies to democratic states and republican states. The people end up liking the person elected. It can happen.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

I don't have much to say on the electoral college but I will say this: there are plenty of times that the majority of the state is one party, but the opposite party wins, and it's actually better for the state. This applies to democratic states and republican states. The people end up liking the person elected. It can happen.

Never in my state!

[ladyfreckles]

I should clarify (unrelated to digitize's comment) that I didn't mean the majority of votes I just meant the majority of land. Example, the majority of Washington state is republican except for the most densely populated areas of the state. That doesn't necessarily mean more voters are republican.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by digitize

Never in my state!

Same for New York. Hell will freeze over if the state gets a Republican majority.

[Popmartijn]

It looks like you only have friends if you're winning...
Disappearing Romney: Watch Mitt Romney's Facebook Likes Decrease in Real Time

(OTOH, he still has 12+ million as I'm writing this)

[deep]

here is the link, just to verify



http://www.facebook.com/mittromney

I always multi-source every so-called fact

[deep]

for anyone that wants to believe the Petraeus affair is an Obama dirty delay trick, there is nothing coming out to back that up, any more than the timing of when Sandy hit and how big it was as detrimental to Romney.

A source said that Petraeus was first interviewed in connection with the investigation the week of Oct. 28, a week after Broadwell was questioned.

The FBI informed Petraeus’ boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, on the evening of Election Day, Nov. 6.

Clapper spoke with Petraeus that night and the following day and advised him to resign.

Senior US officials said Clapper informed the White House’s National Security Council staff of the looming scandal and Petraeus’ intention to resign on Wednesday.

President Obama was informed later that day, they said.

On Friday, the president accepted Petraeus’ resignation.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by digitize

Never in my state!

Originally Posted by Pearl

Same for New York. Hell will freeze over if the state gets a Republican majority.

This is another thing I find fascinating about the US political system - despite how dramatically polarised it is, some states are utterly, consistently rock-solid for one party over lengthy periods of time.

Down here, either major party can achieve government in any part of the country. In 2008, every state/territory government and the federal government was Labour - the highest Liberal/National officeholder in the land was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Now the electoral pendulum has swung the other way and we could be awfully close to the Liberals/Nationals being able to claim that honour in a year or two.

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

I should clarify (unrelated to digitize's comment) that I didn't mean the majority of votes I just meant the majority of land. Example, the majority of Washington state is republican except for the most densely populated areas of the state. That doesn't necessarily mean more voters are republican.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you just talking about how much of the land is shaded red or blue on an electoral map, regardless of population density/relative size of electorates/etc.?

If so, I'm not sure that really means too much - if you go by that sort of measure, the "majority" of Australia has supported the Liberal/National Coalition and the "majority" of New Zealand has supported the Nationals at every election since the rise of our current party systems in the 1940s. The huge but almost unpopulated rural swathes of both countries are usually solid Liberal/National, so it always looks like the majority of the country in a geographic sense supports them even if Labour wins the popular vote in a landslide.

[Irvine511]

The rural/urban divide is what many countries have in common.

That's where red/blue comes from, it's why Chicago speaks for Illinois, and why the swing states tend to have a balance of rural/urban.

[PhilsFan]

And the solution to that urban divide is to gerrymander the shit out of your state to allow the Republicans to remain competitive.

I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and it took me like two hours to figure out what district I am in.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The rural/urban divide is what many countries have in common.

That's where red/blue comes from, it's why Chicago speaks for Illinois, and why the swing states tend to have a balance of rural/urban.

Yep. It's a big part of the reason why Obama won Iowa, but King won my district. The eastern half of Iowa is heavily Democratic and has a lot of the big cities, and Obama won that part of the state handily.

Meanwhile, my district envelopes a lot of the center and western part of the state, and they lean very conservative. So King was obviously going to do well there.

My county apparently went for Obama pretty strongly, according to the Des Moines Register's breakdown of Iowa's voting patterns last week.

On a totally unrelated topic, thoughts on this, anyone?:

Secession petitions filed in 20 states | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

As noted, their fight is pretty futile (which makes me wonder why they even bother to begin with), but, still...*Sighs*.

Also, it's just SO reassuring to know someone who says the sorts of things shared in the end quote is in such a notable position. Really. How comforting.

[trojanchick99]

I was tempted to sign the Texas one with the caveat that we keep Austin.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If you were to annex New York City from the rest of New York Sate, it would go red almost every year.


Perhaps its time we just called it a day and broke this bitch up.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

I was tempted to sign the Texas one with the caveat that we keep Austin.

No complaints here!