Romney to cook Big Bird.............


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile Grant Nelson
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 May 12
Posts: 3307
Credit: 1,655,971
RAC: 1,993
United States
Message 1301577 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 5:58:38 UTC - in response to Message 1301563.

Great song......
Luv dem bama phones,......
Cut them off the free phone plan..........
Romney will. Obama's just trying to buy votes.

You all have to get real with this sh88.

Black, white, it don't matter............
He is a self serving, egotistical MF..........and you all know it.

His 'service' to this country is done.

Sorry, kids, but this is the way the kittyman sees it.


Give Obama what he deserves......the high, hard one out the door.
Don't diss me for being beautiful.

Profile Grant Nelson
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 May 12
Posts: 3307
Credit: 1,655,971
RAC: 1,993
United States
Message 1301578 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 5:59:21 UTC - in response to Message 1301577.

Your out of line.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31719
Credit: 12,939,121
RAC: 39,890
United Kingdom
Message 1301666 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 13:44:46 UTC
Last modified: 3 Nov 2012, 13:57:45 UTC

In the presidential election each state is worth a number of votes, based on its population, and if the race is close it could come down to a single state. The winner is the candidate who secures 270 votes or more. The bar below shows the votes that are considered safe for each candidate and, in the middle, the battleground states that could be won by either side. Explore what might happen in the election and compare your prediction with those of the experts.


Poll prediction

Looking at the map it seems that going upon population, Obama will get the West Coast and the East Coast votes, to win, whilst Romney will get middle America. But going upon number of states and land area, Romney should win. So a President can win by people numbers, but only represent 25% of the Country? Isn't it time this Electoral College was looked into?

Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote.


We in the UK are also questioning the way that voting is done when we had the Alternative Vote referendum recently. I don't think that either country gets the politicians that truly represent the wishes of the people with their present systems.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12527
Credit: 6,826,944
RAC: 5,112
United States
Message 1301697 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 15:34:01 UTC - in response to Message 1301666.

Poll prediction

Looking at the map it seems that going upon population, Obama will get the West Coast and the East Coast votes, to win, whilst Romney will get middle America. But going upon number of states and land area, Romney should win. So a President can win by people numbers, but only represent 25% of the Country? Isn't it time this Electoral College was looked into?

By land mass you are correct. But not by population. Consider that the state of Nevada has less residents in total than the population living within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles California. Of that the City of Los Angeles has five times the number of people as the State of Alaska. There are places in the US where you can be the only person within 100 miles. This isn't Europe.

There is a bit of inequity, which was intentionally put into the Electoral College to bias it towards small population states. This because each state is given two votes simply by existing, the rest are by population. This was done so that small states can not be ignored.

Perhaps Chris is right and we should give each state 3 Senators for existing and hence 3 votes for existing in the Electoral Collage.


____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31719
Credit: 12,939,121
RAC: 39,890
United Kingdom
Message 1301700 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 15:44:02 UTC

Perhaps Chris is right and we should give each state 3 Senators for existing and hence 3 votes for existing in the Electoral Collage.

It does seem to me that the current representation is disproportionate.



Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 41,828,434
RAC: 142,246
Message 1301719 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 16:21:30 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:25:19 UTC

--

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1715
Credit: 204,918,149
RAC: 24,844
Australia
Message 1301726 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:00:14 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.

.....If we followed this line of the constitution, we'd mathematically approach a pure democracy.

All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.

For you liberals out there advocating for pure democracy, pure democracies always fail.

Us conservatives shouldn't have allowed you to pass the 17th amendment. That was a significant step towards a pure democracy.

Hmmmm. A strange statement from a citizen of a country that styles itself "The Home of Democracy".

Is an "impure" democracy still a democracy ?

Has there ever been a "pure" democracy ? Even Ancient Greece had limitations on suffrage.

Please name a "pure democracy" that has failed and how long did it last ?

It sounds to me like you are advocating a system where only "The Gentry" can vote (because they know best) and the Plebian rabble are left to get on with the job of making money for The Gentry unconcerned by politics.

According to Wikipedia, one of the reasons the 17th amendment was passed was to negate "the risk of corruption". They might as well repeal it, on those grounds, it has failed completely

T.A.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,149,141
RAC: 4,135
United States
Message 1301733 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:11:16 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.

You state the constitution often enough to realize the high bar set in order to pass an amendment. Were conservatives that weak in the 1910's? I don't think that was the case, they too saw the need for this change.





Us conservatives shouldn't have allowed you to pass the 17th amendment. That was a significant step towards a pure democracy.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,149,141
RAC: 4,135
United States
Message 1301734 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:12:58 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.


Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9255
Credit: 1,453,578
RAC: 1,868
United States
Message 1301736 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:17:24 UTC - in response to Message 1301734.

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.




+1

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12527
Credit: 6,826,944
RAC: 5,112
United States
Message 1301766 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 18:26:24 UTC

If we want to get real radical, lets have a third house. Its job will be to repeal existing laws. The representation in it will be based on the amount of land area in the state. Just to be a bit more fair, not federally controlled land area, so national parks, forests etc., don't count. Then we give an equal number to the electoral college. How radical is that?

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,759,949
RAC: 1,261
United States
Message 1302074 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:05:55 UTC - in response to Message 1301195.

Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg.

One could make that exact same argument about electing a Republican back into office.

It's so funny how many people blame Obama for the economy, apparently forgetting the guy that got us into the mess and WHEN.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,759,949
RAC: 1,261
United States
Message 1302075 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:07:50 UTC - in response to Message 1301736.
Last modified: 4 Nov 2012, 14:23:58 UTC

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.




+1

+2

@Gary's; shouldn't it be based on population, rather than physical size of the state? I mean really... Come on. You'd be giving greater power to states with much smaller populations. Which is an existing issue, with the senate IMHO. Then again some of us prefer thinking of the US as one country, and others want it to be 50 countries.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 41,828,434
RAC: 142,246
Message 1302080 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:19:17 UTC - in response to Message 1302074.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:39:38 UTC

--

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,759,949
RAC: 1,261
United States
Message 1302084 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:25:00 UTC - in response to Message 1302080.

Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg.

One could make that exact same argument about electing a Republican back into office.

It's so funny how many people blame Obama for the economy, apparently forgetting the guy that got us into the mess and WHEN.


You are completely ignoring the balance of power in DC.

Which has also been slightly to the right for several years now as far as I know..
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 41,828,434
RAC: 142,246
Message 1302092 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:42:06 UTC - in response to Message 1302084.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:39:28 UTC

--

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............

Copyright © 2014 University of California