|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2016 United States Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: Not sure if that is sarcasm or not, but history also shows that 11 states seceded from the union following that same election. Exactly. It was not sarcasm. Il Donald has awakened and legitimized the very worst in Americans and I am not at all sure what to expect should he lose the election. Even more, I'm not sure what to expect should he win the election. I remember all too well waiting in line to pick up my lunch at a McDonald's when we were all told that a bomb threat had been received and to leave the building immediately. I remember the summer the cities burned. I lived through a nasty period in the US and had hoped that once would be enough. At least at that time the protests were actually demanding progress and not repression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
jar writes: I lived through a nasty period in the US and had hoped that once would be enough. History has shown us that we are doomed to repeat it. For example, there were strict regulations put in after the Great Depression to prevent another Great Depression. What did we do? We got rid of those regulations which resulted in another massive recession. Go figure. How many market bubbles do we have to see before we stop falling for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
It's encouraging that crazy talk sounds crazy to most people.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
It's encouraging that crazy talk sounds crazy to most people. Yet sadly, it is considered 'straight talk' by a large portion of our electorate. To quote the comedian Jim Jefferies: "If you're someone that says you like Donald Trump because he is a straight talker, you're as dumb as shit!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Taq writes, regarding the election process:
It takes the same amount of time every other year--just one day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Not TRUE, mon ami. My friend in Wisconsin will vote Oct. 22nd. I also know of someone in Georgia who as already voted. Then there is absentee voting, where ballots can come in after November 8th this year and be counted if they were post-marked in time. Mail in voting in Oregon & Washington are two more examples. Plus the Primary Season is VERY MUCH a part of the election process.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Taq writes way back on the 12th:
And let's not forget gerrymandering. Another tactic they used, especially in 2010 when the Congressional districts were re-drawn. In case it wasn't clear, that is what I meant by "their control of congressional districting through state governments" in the previous post. This may belong in a new thread, but I just wanted to toss out this idea to eliminate gerrymandering completely: Suppose we have a state with 16 districts, like Ohio. How do we avoid gerrymandering of any kind? Part 1-------------- Suppose every seat is At Large. The General Election ballot will have maybe 40-50 candidates on it, with a letter beside, indicating party affiliation - R, D, L, I, G, and so on. In 2014 the Ohio popular vote split like this: R 51.2%D 45.5 L 1.2 I 0.8 G 0.3 and so on. Apportion the 16 Representatives accordingly: 16 * .512 = 8.1916 * .455 = 7.28 16 * .012 = 0.19 16 * .008 = 0.13 16 * .003 = 0.05 and so on. So the Republicans get 8 representives, the Democrats 7 and the Libertarians get 1, the rest not getting enough. Part 2------------- The highest 8 R finishers are in.The highest 7 D finishers are in. The highest L finisher is in. Just as a note, Ohio is currently split 12 R and 4 D, which is EVIDENCE of R gerrymandering. By having ALL candidates running at large there are NO district lines to gerrymander. What do you think? There must be something wrong with this idea. Right?Help me out? Edited by xongsmith, : general election (i.e. November 8th this year) Edited by xongsmith, : this- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
xongsmith writes: There must be something wrong with this idea. Right? Right, there is something wrong with this! Representatives currently represent a geographic area, like a city or county. In many states there are rural and urban areas with different issues and wants due to this. How do you decide which representative represents your city or county under your plan? I live in Florida and we just had a court ordered redistricting which should make our future elections fairer. We have more Democrats than Republicans in the state but more Republicans have been elected due to gerrymandered districts, one of them literally looked like a snake and ran all the way from Jacksonville to Orlando, meandering as needed to gobble up as many historically black areas as possible. To be fair districts should follow country/city boundaries and not be snake like. In Texas, the bluest city in the state, Austin, is split between 5-6 districts so the blue gets spread out. It's so obviously gerrymandered I don't know how it's been allowed to continue. Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given. Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
xongsmith writes: How do we avoid gerrymandering of any kind? The best way to avoid gerrymandering is to have non-partisan councils put in charge of districting. It is impossible to make seats exactly match percentage of votes, but at least we can put some distance between political parties and districting.
Suppose every seat is At Large. That's a no-go. I personally think it is worth preserving the tradition of US Representatives being held accountable to an actual geographic region and the voters who live in that geographic region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
kjsimons asks:
Representatives currently represent a geographic area, like a city or county. In many states there are rural and urban areas with different issues and wants due to this. How do you decide which representative represents your city or county under your plan? You don't. You decide which Representative candidate represents yourself the most, not what is best for where you live. You could live in the sticks of a rural farmland which will always vote redneck in overwhelming numbers, but align to a candidate in the inner city that is closer to your positions. Currently you are screwed by living where you live. I suppose you could decide to move into the inner city district where candidates align with you. Or vice versa - you could be stuck in the city but want to vote for Old McDonald on his farm and be unable to move out to the country. But why deal with that if it isn't necessary? It would a be paradigm shift and might take a few 2-year cycles to shake out. Edited by xongsmith, : added missing s on represents- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Taq writes:
I personally think it is worth preserving the tradition of US Representatives being held accountable to an actual geographic region and the voters who live in that geographic region. Why? Isn't this just another fossil of the days of property owners being the only people allowed to vote? The down-river voters in the district below may not want a nuclear power plant upstream. Or a coal-fired power plant upwind.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
xongsmith writes: You don't. You decide which Representative candidate represent yourself the most, not what is best for where you live. I don't think you have really thought this through. Let's say you live in Austin, Texas, a totally blue city. A local blue representative could actually help you if the area wasn't gerrymandered so that there is no blue majority districts. What you suggest would allow the tyranny of the majority to continue to overrun the minority as there would be no local Representative for the area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
We've been so focused on the presidential election here, most have not taken a look at how the senate races are going.
According to Real Clear Politics, the Democrats are poised to pick up four seats: realclearpolitics.com That would make it a tie; 50/50. However, if Clinton wins the presidency, that essentially gives the senate to the Democrats with the VP tie-breaker vote in their favor. The house will still stay in Republican hands (thanks in large part to gerrymandering), but the Dems will be picking up a few seats there as well. So projections are for a Republican controlled house and a Democratic controlled senate and presidency. The good news there is that will essentially keep Obamacare intact and also likely ensure Supreme Court picks that will likely be more socially liberal. The bad news is we are in for more political gridlock over the coming years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Now that the 3 presidential debates are done, what are the opinions here about the debate moderation? Was Wallace of Fox news more biased than...Martha Raddatz (and others from the mainstream) less biased, or about the same?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Now that the 3 presidential debates are done, what are the opinions here about the debate moderation? Was Wallace of Fox news more biased than...Martha Raddatz (and others from the mainstream) less biased, or about the same? I am not a Fox News fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due: I thought Chris Wallace did an outstanding job as moderator in the last debate. He asked poignant questions, he did not let either Clinton or Trump divert too much from answers, and he was able to keep the audience controlled. I thought Martha and Anderson did an admirable job in the second debate. But being that it was a town hall, the format is somewhat different and the moderators aren't actually always the focal point. Rounding things out, I wasn't that impressed with Lester Holt in the first debate. Although I will give him a little leeway in that it was the first debate and nobody really knew what to expect from the candidates. Especially Trump. And once things started to move forward in the debate, Holt didn't seem to be able to keep them on point or to stop Trump from constantly interrupting Hillary. Just my two cents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
kjsimons writes:
I don't think you have really thought this through. Let's say you live in Austin, Texas, a totally blue city. A local blue representative could actually help you if the area wasn't gerrymandered so that there is no blue majority districts. What you suggest would allow the tyranny of the majority to continue to overrun the minority as there would be no local Representative for the area. Glad you brought up Texas. Lets see what my plan would have produced: Texas in 2014: 36 districts Part 1-------------- In 2014 the Texas popular vote split like this: R 60.28%D 33.10 L 5.06 G 1.39 I 0.18 Apportion the 36 Representatives accordingly: R 36 * .6028 = 21.70D 36 * .3310 = 11.92 L 36 * .0506 = 1.82 G 36 * .0139 = 0.50 I 36 * .0018 = 0.06 ------------------- 36.00 So the Republicans get 22 representives, the Democrats 12 and the Libertarians get 2, the rest not getting enough. Part 2------------- The highest 22 R finishers are in.The highest 12 D finishers are in. The highest 2 L finishers are in. Just as a note, Texas is currently split 25 R and 11 D, which is EVIDENCE of R gerrymandering. Are you going to tell me that none of the 12 Highest D finishers might come from Austin? Also notice that a 3rd party got 2 Representatives!!- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024