You Lie = Ka-ching!

[jeff]

There are a lot of reasons why any proposal regarding a change for DC are problematic (most have very different problems)... But the fact that's most problematic *right now* with DC is .... wait for it.... taxation without representation. Which you, like most people, are opposed to. So how do you suggest we fix the most egregious example of something you seem to care a whole bunch about?

I think the right wing chants about "taxation without representation" are merely ways to (a) complain about taxation, period, and (b) complain about who won the last election.

chase and those like him miss the point that we have taxation with representation. They're in denial about the fact that valid elections were held.

[Slim]

I think the right wing chants about "taxation without representation" are merely ways to (a) complain about taxation, period, and (b) complain about who won the last election.

chase and those like him miss the point that we have taxation with representation. They're in denial about the fact that valid elections were held.

They kinda ring as hollow as claims of disenfranchised voters, "Selected Not Elected", and "Not My President", now dont they?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

They kinda ring as hollow as claims of disenfranchised voters, "Selected Not Elected", and "Not My President", now dont they?

When the electoral college and the popular vote are different (or even very close to different), there is some outrage that seems fairly justified.

When there is a disputed election, it's also not surprising when there's outrage, regardless of what the eventual outcome is (and whether or not the outcome is fairly achieved.)

2000 involved disputed vote counting AND the winning candidate lost the popular vote.

2008 involved decisive wins in both electoral math and popular vote. Concerns about counting voters was intense in a few locations, but mostly Minnesota, where the Senate was up for grabs, but presidential was going to Obama no matter what.

The most similar modern election was 1992-- the first Clinton victory, when I was too young to really understand what was going on. Were there people who were similarly outraged after that election?

[migopod]

When the electoral college and the popular vote are different (or even very close to different), there is some outrage that seems fairly justified.

When there is a disputed election, it's also not surprising when there's outrage, regardless of what the eventual outcome is (and whether or not the outcome is fairly achieved.)

2000 involved disputed vote counting AND the winning candidate lost the popular vote.

2008 involved decisive wins in both electoral math and popular vote. Concerns about counting voters was intense in a few locations, but mostly Minnesota, where the Senate was up for grabs, but presidential was going to Obama no matter what.

The most similar modern election was 1992-- the first Clinton victory, when I was too young to really understand what was going on. Were there people who were similarly outraged after that election?

After '92 there were no teabag-style protests against Clinton, astroturfed or genuine. There was a definite movement within parts of the GOP to find anything that they could to try to get rid of him starting fairly early on with the whole Whitewater investigation, their cat's christmas card list, on up to the whole impeachment business.

Probably the reason for this was that the whole 24hr wall-to-wall cable news situation, Fox News and the interwebs played a much smaller role back in those days. That and people didn't really care that much, since Bush Sr. was uninspiring and not particularly popular with the right, what with the "no new taxes" lipreading and all.


Clinton was also a white, southern man.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

There are a lot of reasons why any proposal regarding a change for DC are problematic (most have very different problems)... But the fact that's most problematic *right now* with DC is .... wait for it.... taxation without representation. Which you, like most people, are opposed to. So how do you suggest we fix the most egregious example of something you seem to care a whole bunch about?

It is actually possible to figure out a rule set under which people in DC have representation in the congress, while DC as a geographical entity does not.

How?

Simple. Let the citizens of DC vote in another state. DC citizens which are born in one of the 50 states get to vote in that state. Those that were born in DC get to choose one state, and the choice is final - no changing around for the duration of their lives. (If they got to change, there would be a lot of cheating in which DC people changed allegiance to the swing states of that election period. That would give them more electoral power than other citizens, who can not change states without significant costs.) I figured out this solution immediately when I read about the problem way back in 4th grade. Frankly, I find it somewhat dispiriting that this idea is not routinely bandided about by a lot of others who have identified the problem. It is not exactly hard to come up with.

So there you are. A solution which fulfills these criteria:
1. One man, one vote
2. No statehood for Washington DC
3. All citizens of legal age to vote can do so.

Of course, there would have to be some slight rejiggering of the electoral college seats alloted to the states. DC loses its two, while states recieving allegations from many DC citizens might get one.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Slim]

Clinton was also a white, southern man.

So you subscribe to the belief that people oppose his ideas because of his race?

[Slim]

When the electoral college and the popular vote are different (or even very close to different), there is some outrage that seems fairly justified.

How is this justified? Rules are rules. Everyone knows what they are going in. Its sour grapes.

When there is a disputed election, it's also not surprising when there's outrage, regardless of what the eventual outcome is (and whether or not the outcome is fairly achieved.)

What was to be disputed? The SC ruled on it. More sour grapes

2000 involved disputed vote counting AND the winning candidate lost the popular vote.

Popular vote doesnt count, everyone knows this yet they use it to whine when their guy isnt elected. It doesnt matter.

2008 involved decisive wins in both electoral math and popular vote. Concerns about counting voters was intense in a few locations, but mostly Minnesota, where the Senate was up for grabs, but presidential was going to Obama no matter what.

The most similar modern election was 1992-- the first Clinton victory, when I was too young to really understand what was going on. Were there people who were similarly outraged after that election?

The vitriolic rhetoric started when GWB was elected in 2000. Similar claims of rigged elections and disenfranchisement were made in 2004 when he won again.

Why is it different and "mean spirited" now that the other side engages in the same sort of tactics?

Of course its also sour grapes...but so what?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

The fact that USA only has two important parties at any one time is of course a consequence of Duverger´s law. It can be fixed, but not without significant changes to the constitution.

An example of this was the 1992 election where Ross Perot earned 19% of the votes and put Clinton in the White House.

Are you espousing the idea that the 1992 presidential election was an example of Duverger´s law? What kind of convoluted thought processes could lead to that?

Duverger´s law states that plurality voting will in very many cases lead to a two-party system. The 1992 POTUS election was one of comparatively few US elections in which non-major party candidates got significant number of votes, so it is actually - if anything - a counterexample of Duverger´s law. Sheesh.

But our Constitution doesn't mention political parties, so what change do you think is needed? Currently, with 538 electoral votes, if 3 candidates split the votes with no one gaining the 270 needed, the election would go to the House to decide.

While I think Sweeden has too many parties, I'm undecided on a multiparty system in the US.

There are many different ways to set rules which ensure a multiparty system, but the simplest to describe is:

1. Dump the electoral college.
2. Make all HofR seats at-large; apportion seats according to proportional representation.
3. Elect the president by direct vote. However, do away with the current bullet voting system and make the voters list their preferences among all - or a significant number - of the presidential candidates. Yes, that means that you must vote with a voting slip in which you state at least your #1, #2, and #3 preference. Once the votes are in, they should be tallied according to a voting system in which the placement of those candidates which are not placed as #1 by the voter are considered. The current system, which only considers #1 preference, is what has caused so many of the present ills of USA. (That system can actually proved to be one of the worst of all concievable systems.) Personally I would prefer the Schulze method for counting votes since it is extremely resistant to tactical voting, but there are other ones out there which have their pluses also.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[tchwojko]

So you subscribe to the belief that people oppose his ideas because of his race?

Do you believe that there aren't some who do?

[Bayou Bum]

Hi!

3. Elect the president by direct vote. However, do away with the current bullet voting system and make the voters list their preferences among all - or a significant number - of the presidential candidates. Yes, that means that you must vote with a voting slip in which you state at least your #1, #2, and #3 preference. Once the votes are in, they should be tallied according to a voting system in which the placement of those candidates which are not placed as #1 by the voter are considered. The current system, which only considers #1 preference, is what has caused so many of the present ills of USA. (That system can actually proved to be one of the worst of all concievable systems.) Personally I would prefer the Schulze method for counting votes since it is extremely resistant to tactical voting, but there are other ones out there which have their pluses also.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

That has got to be the dumbest idea for a system ever developed. I hope no real government anywhere in the world uses it. I would rather live under ANY other form of government.

[tchwojko]

That has got to be the dumbest idea for a system ever developed. I hope no real government anywhere in the world uses it. I would rather live under ANY other form of government.

Have you looked at the math behind it?

[Hauptman]

How is this justified? Rules are rules. Everyone knows what they are going in. Its sour grapes.



What was to be disputed? The SC ruled on it. More sour grapes



Popular vote doesnt count, everyone knows this yet they use it to whine when their guy isnt elected. It doesnt matter.



The vitriolic rhetoric started when GWB was elected in 2000. Similar claims of rigged elections and disenfranchisement were made in 2004 when he won again.

Why is it different and "mean spirited" now that the other side engages in the same sort of tactics?

Of course its also sour grapes...but so what?

"Rules are rules" is a valid point. I agree with you on this.

However, the Supreme Court ruling was truly unprecedented and a stretch in many ways. You may agree or disagree with it, but there is legitimate room for dispute.

But finally, in 2000 and 2004 there really were many irregularities that affected the outcome of the elections; the Democrats were not just making up any reason to attack Bush. The situations are not the same however, Obama clearly won this last election.

Even more importantly, after the elections the Democrats in Washington worked with, and voted with, G.W. on many key issues; they did not take a "just say no" party line attitude on all things. Can the Republicans say the same with Obama?

I never thought I would wax nostalgic for Newt Gingrich; he and Clinton hammered out some good compromises during the '90s.

[Bayou Bum]

Even more importantly, after the elections the Democrats in Washington worked with, and voted with, G.W. on many key issues; they did not take a "just say no" party line attitude on all things.

Like what? Oh yea, to go to war with Iraq. You should be proud of that one!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

That has got to be the dumbest idea for a system ever developed. I hope no real government anywhere in the world uses it. I would rather live under ANY other form of government.

And I would be willing to spend money to pay for your one-way ticket to that any-other country.


Have a nice trip!

Peter Gustafsson

[Bayou Bum]

Hi!



And I would be willing to spend money to pay for your one-way ticket to that any-other country.


Have a nice trip!

Peter Gustafsson

Okay. I would like a one way ticket to Switzerland. Please email me your credit card number.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

How is this justified? Rules are rules. Everyone knows what they are going in. Its sour grapes.


What was to be disputed? The SC ruled on it. More sour grapes





Popular vote doesnt count, everyone knows this yet they use it to whine when their guy isnt elected. It doesnt matter.

..... So, I'm not an election expert. But before the 2000 election, 1976 was close (Carter v Ford), but Carter won both popular and electoral. 1916- Wilson's second win- was also close-ish, but again, won both popular and electoral. 1880 and 1884 were both VERY close, but again, both victors also won the popular vote. So as far as I can tell, and again, I could be overlooking something, the last time (before 2000) the popular vote was different than the electoral was in 1876 with Rutherford Hayes.

I'm willing to guess that there were more than a few people who, before the 2000 election, didn't really understand the electoral college. I would also guess that some didn't know it existed. This isn't ideal. But if it isn't important for over a hundred years.... even if people really do understand the implications, it's just not marked as "important" in people's minds....

The vitriolic rhetoric started when GWB was elected in 2000. Similar claims of rigged elections and disenfranchisement were made in 2004 when he won again.

Why is it different and "mean spirited" now that the other side engages in the same sort of tactics?

Of course its also sour grapes...but so what?

...... I didn't say it was different. I didn't say it was "mean spirited".

I understand why people are upset, confused, and feel like their world had drastically changed. I was six when Clinton was elected, and GWB was a shock.

But I also didn't suggest that the most patriotic way to respect America was to threaten the president's life. I didn't suggest that certain states should no longer be in the United States. I didn't suggest a bloody civil war.

I understand upset. I understand scared. I even understand dumb. I don't agree in this particular case, but I understand.

I don't get what's patriotic about a civil war. Sorry.

[migopod]

So you subscribe to the belief that people oppose his ideas because of his race?

Oh yes, most definitely.

I had included a disclaimer with that line originally, but I removed it for sinister reasons.

I sincerely believe that it is quite possible to oppose president Obama's policies for reasons other than his race. I also quite sincerely believe that there is a not insignificant contingent who does oppose him personally and by extension his policies because of his race. To suggest that the only reason to oppose Obama is because he is phenotypically an African American is obviously rediculous. To suggest that there is no opposition to him because of the same traits is equally rediculous.


By the way, in the post you're quoting I left out another major inequality between the early days of Clinton versus the early days of Obama.

Bush and Clinton had fairly civil campaigns, and there was relatively little of the whipping up of the lunatic fringe for the election.

the McCain/Palin campaign stirred up a lot of fear, anger, hatred and biggotry. This, of course, wasn't about to go away post election.

[fencerchica]

I understand why people are upset, confused, and feel like their world had drastically changed. I was six when Clinton was elected, and GWB was a shock.

But I also didn't suggest that the most patriotic way to respect America was to threaten the president's life. I didn't suggest that certain states should no longer be in the United States. I didn't suggest a bloody civil war.

I understand upset. I understand scared. I even understand dumb. I don't agree in this particular case, but I understand.

I don't get what's patriotic about a civil war. Sorry.

It won't let me rep you again right now so I'll do it here: Well said.

[Bayou Bum]

Why bother, when even the moderators occasionally just resort to name-calling?

What a wonderful example we have in the White House. Today we have President Obama calling Kanye West a Jackass. So it is wrong for republican to call Obama a liar. It is okay for democrats to call Bush a liar. And it is okay for President Obama to call a private citizen a jackass. See what happens when they let the idiot speak without a teleprompter. Obama's not president, he is just a puppet for the democrat party.

[lindajdunn]

What a wonderful example we have in the White House. Today we have President Obama calling Kanye West a Jackass.

Is there anyone here who knows what Kanye West did at the award ceremony who does NOT consider him to be a jackass? Or worse?

The comment was made during an off-the-record portion of the interview. I find it mildly amusing that some journalists now are saying it is the kind of non-Spock-like comment he needs to make to improve his ratings.

Good grief!