Summations Only

Yes, and then for Karl Rove to go on his rant about "voter supression" by PAC when he was the Republican PACmaster is the picture of hypocrisy.Before we go on giving too much credit, at some point, note that at some point, Fox was going to have to acknowledge the results of the election. The fun part so far has been watching Karl Rove do so in the most graceless way possible, short of joining those few Ole Miss students in a protest demonstration.Haven't seen O'Reilly yet, but I predict he'll simply dump all over the part of the electorate that Obama won. I have seen a bit of Hannity's ranting.I haven't heard anyone say this yet, but for me the real elephant in the room is that Obama won while getting only 40% of the white vote. I cannot imagine a "one of us" Democrat doing any worse than that with the white vote which surely must include at least some people who wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, but historically, we know where this leads. Dems do some good, but get corrupted by power eventually and start to repulse the electorate. Then the Repubs get their turn.

I was watching a little C-SPAN this afternoon, and I saw a panel discussion with some people looking at post election demographics. The panel members that caught my ear were Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and James Pinkerton of Fox News. I believe Stanley Greenberg also participated.Reed and Pinkerton were in absolute denial mode about the election. They seemed to believe that the only lesson to be gathered was that maybe the Republican party could do better if they tackled immigration reform. But they seemed skeptical about even that.Pinkerton recounted a bunch of history about incumbents usually winning, and I noted that he never even mentioned the fact that elder Bush only had a single term. He did manage to mention Jimmy Carter's single term. It was not just a matter of failing to mention the elder Bush. Pinkerton cited statistics that did not include Bush's single term.Reed harped on the increase in evangelical voting and how well Romney did with that group.I believe it was Pinkerton who claimed that Obama benefited from promising immigration reform and then not actually accomplishing it, thus leaving the issue on the table. Neither Pinkerton nor Reed entertained any idea that the harsh tone the Republicans took on immigration had anything to do with the results.Greenberg raised the point that the Republicans unexpected inability to capture any senate seats was something worth noting, and both Reed and Pinkerton advanced various explanations of why the Democrats success in the senate meant absolutely nothing. In my view the explanations were utterly unconvincing, but you can probably find a replay of the panel discussion on C-SPAN's website.In short, if Pinkerton and Reed are any examples, the right wing of the Republican party will learn absolutely nothing from the election. The main problem with their explanations, is that they leave Obama's victory utterly inexplicable.

After reading your message, I looked at a few of Buzsaws last few posts here. Those posts included one rational post and a couple more of vintage Buz ranting and raving. Buzsaw is a great foil and a huge abuse target. But he is completely out of his depth here.I have been here a relatively short time compared to most of you, but I can name a number of creationist posters I'd rather see return before Buz. I don't miss him even a little.

Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment? The formula for apportioning the electoral college votes is part of the constitution. The formula is electoral votes = senators + house reps.

So you are okay with the fact that everyone in Rhode Island's vote for president counts more than yours? Why should that be the case? RI senator is not your senator, but you share a president.

It is not the same as everything else. The method is unique to picking the pres and vice pres.The issue as has been discussed here before is that adding in the number of senators distorts the weighing. If that were not done, everyone's vote would count about the same. More populous states would still get more electoral votes than less popular votes but proportionate with their populations. As things are now, empty states get more than their population proportionate share of electors.One might argue that the senate is even further out of kilter than the electoral college. That is true. But it does not justify the distorted weighing of the electoral college.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by make representation proportional for each state. If it means splitting electors, there is still the problem that states with few citizens get too many electors.

Except that with proportional splitting it does not do any such thing does it? Unlike the case in the senate, we only get one president at a time. Over emphasizing the smallest states when we use proportional voting just means that some people's vote counts more than others. But that does not mean that those folks are right, does it?State representation makes some sense in the Senate because a faction can stop bad legislation from passing as long as they get a reasonable number of senators on their side. How would justice have been served by making up some goofy coalition that allowed a minority of the population to pick the president. The majority would then have no representation at the executive level.

The reason for increasing the multiplier is to offset the distortion created by adding in the extra two electors. Why would anyone with a 'Confederate Mentality' go for this? Totally unnecessary. Just changing to proportional representation (without the extra two electors) should be enough. Of course the result would be to emphasize an urban v. rural political divide.

I'm not intrigued. Seriously. An editorial from a wingnut magazine claims that Obama's presidency is just short of the apocalypse? Not so surprising. This is the same magazine that finds it outrageous that people they have never heard of and cannot be bothered to research are on postage stamps.American Thinker? Please.

The election is over. But the wing-nut whining about the election has apparently just begun. Pretty funny on election day, but at this point the animosity shows signs of lasting even longer than the resentment after Gore v. Bush, and that's saying something.And apparently, the higher your wing-nut index, the louder you are complaining about the election. The extreme Wing-nuts are no longer making any pretense of loving liberty or democracy. Good. I am glad the sheets are off.