US Presidential Election Tie...Possible

[george]

I'm more amused by the system that comes down to an entire state handing over all its 'president deciding power' depending on which candidate the majority of the inhabitants of that state voted.

So really, the people aren't directly voting. Oh well. I'll just enjoy my monarchy lol.

I agree the system is not great, but it's designed that way for a reason (though a couple of states do not use this system btw). If it was a majority vote then states with huge populations (like California) would dominate areas of the country with less population but as much right to represent their issues via their candidate of choice.

[guest509]

  Historically we had states with tons and tons of slaves that couldn't vote. The electoral college gives each state a number of votes for president based on population, not based on the # of voters. That way they could keep the blacks from voting without sacrificing power.

  Pretty ingenious and diabolical really.

  Since we abolished slavery we've kept the system because it forces a candidate to be popular in a variety of areas of the country, and not just be SUPER popular in a few areas. This can be important in a large country with a myriad of diverse values.

  For perspective, my state is about the size and population of Finland, but that only amounts for 7 out of 528 electoral votes for president. That's huge.

  Also the 'electors' are only ceremonial. They are forced to cast their vote for whoever their state voted for.

  I do believe in modern times, with modern mass communication, even a country as big and diverse as the US can go the popular vote route without a problem. The major issues are shared enough across regions and demographics that it wouldn't be an issue. Tomorrow's vote could very likely see Romney take the popular vote but Obama win the election. If this happens we might finally see a change, especially since it happened in 2000. Unlikely to change, but maybe.

[guest509]

  Well the president was re-elected. It's interesting to look at some of the numbers.

  Obama got a minority of the white vote, but a HUGE majority of the latino and black vote (about 25% of the electorate). He also did well with women.

  The challenger got a majority of men, old people and white people. Enough for a good showing, but not enough to win.

[getter77]

Welcome to aging and narrowing demographics----now there's what you bet the future on!   


In perhaps niftier news, it would appear that Puerto Rico has actually began the motions to try and join as the 51st State----much of it lost on the news cycle thus far to hardcore Romney folks crying and nearly losing it on air.

[guest509]

  You saw the meltdowns? It was pretty bad. Like refusal to accept results, disbelief, shock, horror...these guys are so stupid. They trusted in some insane gut feeling rather than look at the polls. Every poll had Obama up, across the board. These are the people who are supposed to inform the populace and they live in such an artificial bubble.

  As for the numbers, which I love to look at, it gets obvious you can't win without some minority vote. You need 50 points to win, here is the break down by voting.
Total Minority= 28%. Will be 30 to 31 next time.
-Blacks = 13% points and increasing slowly.
-Latinos = 10% points and increasing fast, they are actually 15% of the population.
-Others = 5% mostly asians, pacific islanders, natives, mixed etc...
Total White = 72% and decreasing about .5% a year.

  Also men vote less than women (45/55) and older people vote more than younger (hard to quantify, the youth vote can be highly variable election to election)

Obama got like 24/28 points possible with minorities. That means he can get only 26/72 whites and win. He ended up with around 28 for the win.

[jim]

Taste their sweet tears:

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

[requerent]

I can't understand why the current president's party can't  have a new candidate for president. It's easier for the other party to win, because I guess people think Obama has not fulfilled expectations.

It has happened in the past. It's not up to the party though. It's up to the individual. People can run against the president if they want, no problem, it happens a lot, but they will not likely secure the nomination. The party does not really decide who runs or wins the party nomination, it's decided state by state by voters.

Oh man- just popped into this thread and read this. I used to think it was true, but after what they did to Ron Paul and his supporters, I'm thoroughly depressed.

[guest509]

  What'd they do to Ron Paul? He ran and lost. He was in all the debates, on the ballot in all the states. He could have ran on his own, probably would have pulled like 10% to.

  Are you talking about how FOX basically wouldn't give him any notice? You can't get anywhere without FOX if you are a Republican.

[requerent]

  What'd they do to Ron Paul? He ran and lost. He was in all the debates, on the ballot in all the states. He could have ran on his own, probably would have pulled like 10% to.

  Are you talking about how FOX basically wouldn't give him any notice? You can't get anywhere without FOX if you are a Republican.

The republican party is a private organization. They have their own rules that can be conditionally overruled if the party leaders see fit that such a situation exists.

I was commenting on this specifically-

The party does not really decide who runs or wins the party nomination, it's decided state by state by voters.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/sep/2/real-story-behind-those-ron-paul-delegates-maine/

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-excluded-from-2012-cpac-event/

http://ivn.us/2012/08/17/gop-excludes-ron-paul-from-speaking-in-tampa/ - http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/ron-paul-revolt-blows-up-gops-unified-convention.php


I'm not even on the up-and-up, but the information is overwhelmingly accessible.

[guest509]

  Those links do not say what you say they say.

[requerent]

  Those links do not say what you say they say.

Delegates were voted in, but party leaders unseated them. The voters were not the deciding factor in determining who won at least 5 of the state nominations.

[Skeletor]

Ron Paul farewell has been a very sad moment for me.
Here his speech:
video http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4161883
transcript http://www.dailypaul.com/263111/ron-pauls-farewell-address-full-text

[guest509]

@Req - Oh I thought you were saying that the party chooses the candidate, that the people in the states are not involved. What you were really saying is Ron Paul got fucked by the bullshit internal politics of the fuckwit Republican Party.

In fact both are true in a certain sense. Most state primaries and caucuses only allow Republicans to vote (thus it really IS the party at large that decides), and without a doubt Paul was shafted. He was clearly and openly shafted.

The absolute fear of mass democracy by the right is astounding.

[AgingMinotaur]

Yay

As always,
Minotauros