| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2008 09:47:30 AM · #201 |
According to this data lifted from CNN, it seems to me that Obama won New Hampshire by 1 superdelegate.
* Hillary Clinton has won 9 New Hampshire delegates (3 statewide, 6 district-level)
* Barack Obama has won 9 New Hampshire delegates (3 statewide, 6 district-level)
* John Edwards has won 4 New Hampshire delegates (2 statewide, 2 district-level)
* 22 Democratic delegates were at stake in the New Hampshire primary
* There are also 8 Democratic “superdelegates” in New Hampshire. Of those, 2 support Clinton and 3 support Obama, according to a CNN survey.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 10:00:36 AM · #202 |
If I were voting for the person that makes me feel good and gives great speaches, Obama wins pretty easily. Unfortunately, I don't like a lot of his positions so I won't be voting for him. And if I hear the word change one more time I'm going to puke!
Sadly, I have major disagreements with all 6 of the leaders.
I'm praying for a 3rd party person...
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 10:10:40 AM · #203 |
Has anyone heard about the differences in hand counts vs. Diebold counts?
//reddit.com.reddit.com/goto?id=64yic
//reddit.com.reddit.com/goto?id=64yv4
//reddit.com.reddit.com/goto?id=64z5r
I think it will be interesting to see what comes of this.
Message edited by author 2008-01-09 10:11:58. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 10:14:17 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I were voting for the person that makes me feel good and gives great speaches, Obama wins pretty easily. Unfortunately, I don't like a lot of his positions so I won't be voting for him. And if I hear the word change one more time I'm going to puke!
Sadly, I have major disagreements with all 6 of the leaders.
I'm praying for a 3rd party person... |
That's me most years.
It's still a little eary to tell much, especially on the republican side. I am getting weary of Romney now..keeps flipping around like he's clueless on what his campaign is doing, not good for leader to be that out of communication.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 10:40:51 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I were voting for the person that makes me feel good and gives great speaches, Obama wins pretty easily. Unfortunately, I don't like a lot of his positions so I won't be voting for him. And if I hear the word change one more time I'm going to puke!
Sadly, I have major disagreements with all 6 of the leaders.
I'm praying for a 3rd party person... |
funny I could almost say the same thing, except I don't think his speeches are that great and I can't say I won't be voting for him. Of the 6 people you mention, I'm currently vacillating between Obama and Edwards. I think that choice is going to be made for me, however.
When looking at the entire field, Kucinich is the one who matches me most closely. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:01:52 AM · #206 |
| i think we should all vote for sponge bob!!!! |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:04:21 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by rider:
i think we should all vote for sponge bob!!!! |
No way man....Jean Luc Picard for President.
Sponge Bob isn't experienced enough. He can barely hold a job flipping burgers.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:29:44 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I were voting for the person that makes me feel good and gives great speaches, Obama wins pretty easily. Unfortunately, I don't like a lot of his positions so I won't be voting for him. And if I hear the word change one more time I'm going to puke!
Sadly, I have major disagreements with all 6 of the leaders.
I'm praying for a 3rd party person... |
funny I could almost say the same thing, except I don't think his speeches are that great and I can't say I won't be voting for him. Of the 6 people you mention, I'm currently vacillating between Obama and Edwards. I think that choice is going to be made for me, however.
When looking at the entire field, Kucinich is the one who matches me most closely. |
I also believe that Kucinich is the best candidate but he won't get the nomination. I like Obama but if he gets the nomination, I think the Republicans will destroy him. I also like Edwards and he seems to be the only one that wants to go after the big corporate takeover of the middle class and he has changed his mind on the war and he did it early. I think he also has the strength to fight the Right. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:32:22 AM · #209 |
I want Hillary to win just so we can see "Ladybird Bill" spoken on TV.
me
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:47:16 AM · #210 |
| i wonder who she would have under the desk in the oval office? lmao |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 01:17:22 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm praying for a 3rd party person... |
I voted outside the 2 parties one year. Regretted that choice so much that I now hold my nose and pick the least of the 2 evils. Too bad we couldn't have 6 presidents with each responsible for their area of expertise. Obama could deliver the speeches, McCain could coordinate the wars, Edwards could take on the special interests, Guiliani could address our terrorist preparation and Hillary could...well, she could...well, maybe she could...well, maybe not. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:00:16 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm praying for a 3rd party person... |
I voted outside the 2 parties one year. Regretted that choice so much that I now hold my nose and pick the least of the 2 evils. Too bad we couldn't have 6 presidents with each responsible for their area of expertise. Obama could deliver the speeches, McCain could coordinate the wars, Edwards could take on the special interests, Guiliani could address our terrorist preparation and Hillary could...well, she could...well, maybe she could...well, maybe not. |
okay, but I would shift the responsibilities. Edwards could be in charge of universal health care. Edwards could coordinate the peace and end the wars. Hillary and Obama could restore our alliances with the rest of the world. McCain could get a few Republican legislators to vote the right way. Hillary could be in charge of education and homeland security. Obama can have the Budget. Edwards can have the CIA. Romney can throw the first pitch at baseball games and wave in football parades. Giuliani can wash the bathrooms. Am I missing anybody? |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:28:09 PM · #213 |
| Edwards's answer to "health care" would be to make sure that all doctors are sued to the maximum limit for malpractice so that they had to go out of business. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:43:53 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by frisca:
does anyone know why such a complicated (and arguably undemocratic) system has developed? It certainly makes it appear that its not really one citizen, one vote since some votes are weighted more heavily than others. |
I assume you're referring to the Electoral College?
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, you have a nation comprised of 10 states. One state is very urbanized and has 51% of the population, the other 9 states are largely rural in nature and combines have 49% of the population.
Now let's suppose we develop an electoral college system that gives one electoral vote per 10,000 people in the state, with 1 vote still inherent even if you don't HAVE 10,000 people, and one electoral vote to each state just for being a state. (yes, I recognize this isn't quite how ours works, but...)
Now let's further suppose that the urban state is 80% behind Joe, who has "big city" ideas on how to run a country, and the other 9 states are 80% behind Mike, who has a distinctly different point of view.
In order for Joe to win the election, he has to forge a coalition that takes into account the desires of the 49% of the population that think differently than he does. If the election were to be on popular vote only, he wouldn't have to do that.
Elections by straight popular vote are inherently undemocratic, leading to the potential abuse of "tyranny of the majority". They are also subject to tremendous splintering of the electorate, with many, many candidates all receiving small numbers of votes.
The Electoral College system encourages coalition building, small numbers of large political parties, and government by consensus. In theory, anyway. I'm not a blind defender of the Electoral College, but it has served us pretty well for a long time, and I think direct popular vote would be a serious mistake.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-01-09 14:44:17.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:49:42 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Elections by straight popular vote are inherently undemocratic, leading to the potential abuse of "tyranny of the majority". R. |
Just to push you a bit Robert, how would a popular vote be considered "undemocratic"? What definition of democracy are you using?
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:53:28 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In order for Joe to win the election, he has to forge a coalition that takes into account the desires of the 49% of the population that think differently than he does. If the election were to be on popular vote only, he wouldn't have to do that.
Elections by straight popular vote are inherently undemocratic, leading to the potential abuse of "tyranny of the majority". They are also subject to tremendous splintering of the electorate, with many, many candidates all receiving small numbers of votes. |
I think the last few US elections show that this distinction doesn't really happen - it is still a case of taking into account enough states (instead of people) to get 51% of the vote. It just means that a few marginal states get all of the continual automatic phone calls and the rest get less hassle.
I'm not sure if it is more or less inherently democratic for small swing states to get to decide the future, than say larger, more populated states. Real democracy actually is straight majority rule. If that's a better or worse thing than a republic is an interesting topic for discussion. If it ever gets tried in a modern government, we might see if it is a good thing or not.
Message edited by author 2008-01-09 14:54:11. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:54:38 PM · #217 |
| Actually a Democratic systems is the majority rules, ie popular vote. We, fortunalty, live in a republic where we elect representatives to speak for us. The electoral college is a pretty solid system that, like Robert stated, prevents a certain region from getting a stranglehold on political offices and pushing their views upon the minority. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:54:41 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Elections by straight popular vote are inherently undemocratic, leading to the potential abuse of "tyranny of the majority". R. |
Just to push you a bit Robert, how would a popular vote be considered "undemocratic"? What definition of democracy are you using?
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. |
Most people I know think the basic principle of democracy is "majority rules". They think if there are 10 of us and only 9 of you, we get what we want and the hell with you. I'm overstating the case, I realize, but that's the basics of what they think.
But the roots of democracy are far different. Democracy is rooted on public discourse and coalition building, to allow a temperate majority to evolve.
I know perfectly well I was going to extremes in the original post, but we ALL of us have had experiences in our lives with the tyranny of the majority, if only in high school, and I, personally, am scared to death of it. I'm all for discourse and coalitions and reasoned compromise.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:55:37 PM · #219 |
n/m
Message edited by author 2008-01-09 14:55:56.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 02:57:15 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Actually a Democratic systems is the majority rules, ie popular vote. We, fortunalty, live in a republic where we elect representatives to speak for us. The electoral college is a pretty solid system that, like Robert stated, prevents a certain region from getting a stranglehold on political offices and pushing their views upon the minority. |
This is correct. We are a Republic. And our system is, in theory, closer to the roots of Democracy than any winner-take-all, majority-rules system.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 03:12:15 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is correct. We are a Republic. And our system is, in theory, closer to the roots of Democracy than any winner-take-all, majority-rules system. |
Aren't Classical Athenians the true inventors of democracy? And wasn't their democracy a true rule by the majority? If I remember correctly, issues were raised and decisions made by a vote of the people, not by unilateral decisions made by their representatives. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 03:17:43 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is correct. We are a Republic. And our system is, in theory, closer to the roots of Democracy than any winner-take-all, majority-rules system. |
Aren't Classical Athenians the true inventors of democracy? And wasn't their democracy a true rule by the majority? If I remember correctly, issues were raised and decisions made by a vote of the people, not by unilateral decisions made by their representatives. |
Yes, but the point is they DEBATED in public gatherings and arrived at a workable consensus. Each person has his own idea of what to do, and to derive a majority they discussed the issues at length. As opposed to what we see more and more of now, which is a politics of extremism, with certain groups trying to force their viewpoint on the others. For example, the Christian Right in this country...
The Republican model we are working with, and the Electoral College, are reasonably faithful to that original model of democracy; consensus is arrived at on a local level, and representatives represent that consensus at the state and national level. As far as consensus-building goes, this country is far too large and diverse for it to work on a national level.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 03:17:53 PM · #223 |
If it were winner take all, no one would care about anything outside of Calif, Texas, Florida and NY. Smaller states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming and about 30 others would be greatly ignored.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 03:21:25 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If it were winner take all, no one would care about anything outside of Calif, Texas, Florida and NY. Smaller states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming and about 30 others would be greatly ignored. |
Precisely the point.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 03:30:17 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Actually a Democratic systems is the majority rules, ie popular vote. We, fortunalty, live in a republic where we elect representatives to speak for us. The electoral college is a pretty solid system that, like Robert stated, prevents a certain region from getting a stranglehold on political offices and pushing their views upon the minority. |
This is correct. We are a Republic. And our system is, in theory, closer to the roots of Democracy than any winner-take-all, majority-rules system.
R. |
I'll add that I heard it put very well, I don't remeber by whom,
A Republic is more than "majority rules", it is the protection of the minority voice. |
|
