Down To The Wire 2012 >>POLITICS<<

That's one possible explanation. There are others. For example regardless of whether you think that it makes any real difference whether Romney or Obama is elected, if you are a Democrat in say, Oklahoma, your vote, to a first order approximation is meaningless. Similarly, California Republicans might feel the same way about their votes.Some people may simply be unexcited about their choices.And of course there are the shameless attempts at voter suppression carried out almost exclusively by a single party that succeed in some cases.Onifre, I think some people have reached the conclusion that a president is not impactful, but I think you are also engaging in a bit of projection. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I arrived at the early voting "one stop" polling place at about 9:45 this morning. I'm thinking that at this time of day, it is too late in the morning to be voting before going to work and too early to be taking a lunch break. I thinking that the line is packed with the 47 per cent. I strike up a conversation with a retired, disabled veteran and his wife.The line is wrapped round the building. My unscientific conclusion is that enthusiasm among the 47 per cent in this particular swing state (North Carolina) is quite high. I've heard similar stories about early voting in a few other states.I do my good deed for the day and talk to a poll worker about finding a way to accommodate the disabled voters for whom waiting in line was an extreme hardship, and she goes off to tell the people out front to fix things. I thank the retired Viet Nam veteran for his service (a fellow Navy guy) and he thanked me for mine. Then I voted and put on my "I voted sticker".Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think that if we look at the stats for local elections when there are no important national races, we'd find an even lower level of participation.http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?ID=70 In my opinion, these examples make a case for action on the federal level as well as on the state level. It absolutely mattered who was president and who sat on the Supreme Court back in 1954 and 1964 when southern states as a block were opposed to integration. Yes, politics do matter on the state level. No question about that. But when it comes to enforcement of our basic rights, there is a history of both top down and bottom up action being absolutely required.Did your state representative help in replacing the "Don't ask don't tell" policy with something that actually works?" Is state action alone going to preserve women's reproduction rights? In the case of gun control, aren't the limits on what states can do a federal con law question?Like it or not the US system of federalism means that many aspects our lives are impacted by federal law. If your concern is medical marijuana legalization, you need to have the FBI stay out of things even if you and your fellow State bros. manage to get your state reps on your side.

EvC's resident funny guy doesn't get a free pass from me; I've called him on his remarks.In my experience, "politically incorrect" more often than not, is used as a cover for spewing xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist crap. When someone calls you on the spew, you just accuse them of being politically correct.

My guess is that the electoral college was yet another of the compromises needed to get the southern states to sign up for the ConstitutionPopulation in the northern states was growing faster than in the south. There had already been a compromise so that the southern states would have something close to equal representation in the House of Representatives. The south would get to count each slave as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes. Of course, the senate was already 'appropriately' balanced. Each state had two senators.But a direct popular vote for the president was another political power problem for the south. The solution was the electoral college in which the electoral votes were apportioned as one per senator and one per representative. The result was a balance of voting power for president among the states set up to be exactly the same as the balance in the Congress. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This cannot be fixed without radically changing our system. No matter who wins, the votes of people who vote in opposition are disregarded. In most recent presidential elections something close to 49% of the electoral are essentially thrown out. Unless we are going to make the loser the vice president, we're stuck.Nobody really cares what the electoral count margin is, anyways.

I've done a bit of thinking about this since you've posted it. I suppose I'd have to agree. It no longer serves the original purpose (which wasn't all that noble anyway assuming I was right about that).Arguments against changing the system is that the current system does force a bit of federalism into national elections. Some concerns are specific to the state in which you live, and having a state weighted election system forces politicians to appeal to more states.Added by edit: I believe there are only two states that do not use winner takes all. Maine and Nebraska. If every state went to the split system we would end up with something approximating a direct popular vote election without having to alter the constitution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, there are voting systems in place that don't have the property that large minorities are completely ignored, and we can argue the pros and cons of those systems. So, if your question asking me whether I believe that such systems are so outrageous that we should not even consider them, my answer would be that I disagree. I didn't suggest that the election should work that way.If you take a second peak at the actual discussion that I was having with Perdition, you'll note that neither of us is advocating anything like that. My argument was simply that the fact that the electoral college resulted in a large number of votes not having any meaning was not a reason for replacing the system, because a direct voting system produces the same result.

Yes, you are right. I had thought that the resistance to change would come mostly from southern states who currently "benefit" from having large minority populations that all wind up getting counted as Republicans in the general election.I still think that, but your point about small states is well taken.

My personal view is that haranguing someone for their parent's scientific views is ridiculous. It's not like we inherit those things. My own Dad encouraged my to pursue a science/technology education, but my Dad's mom was moon landing denier. I would be pretty amused by an attempt to tar either my Dad or me with my grandma's beliefs.That said, the graduation speech must have been pretty hilarious thing to hear if that wasn't your pa.

Both Romney and Obama have completely avoided the topic of religion. There were some new revelations about Obama's former pastor that came out right before the first debate, but Romney seems unwilling to go there or to "let" his supporting PACs go there. Mormonism is full of targets, but nobody wants to go there either.It's also the case that huge numbers of even Democratic voters are Creationists. There is simply no political hay to make here.

I don't accept that as true. Your instructions to onifre to love it or leave it simply were not funny. I'm accepting that you were just joking because you say that you were. But I didn't see anything funny in your original post.And of course you know what people say about people who brag about their black friends.

A conversation that you chose to have in a public forum. A conversation in which you asked rhetorical questions to the rest of us. And if you have another such 'personal conversation', I'll call you on it again if I so choose. No surprise there.

I agree. But coming off as jackass is winning in some circles.

Maybe, but the build more ships message is aimed directly at Virginians, some of whom view the prospects of more ships at bases like Norfolk in a very positive light regardless of whether it makes real sense militarily.