By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2012 Election Center: The Main Event - Obama Wins

 

Of the two main candidates for president, who will win?

Barack Obama 245 75.85%
 
Mitt Romney 73 22.60%
 
Total:318
smbu2000 said:

Narrowly, but it's passing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21945748

Overcoming decades of anti-tax sentiment in California, Gov. Jerry Brown's Proposition 30 -- billed as a tax hike to rescue the state's schools -- narrowly won Tuesday.

That's good news. I don't think it would have been a total armageddon if the measure hadn't passed, but it wouldn't have been good either.



Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:
the_dengle said:
the2real4mafol said:

Yeah i can't believe how the number of votes vary by state. Places like Montana and the dakotas have just 3 votes compared to Texas, 39 votes and California, 55 votes, not fair at all. The popular vote is the only thing that should replace the electoral college 

Actually.... According to the 2010 census, Montana's population is under one million. It represents about 0.32% of the total US population. However, its 3 electoral votes amount to about 0.56% of all electoral votes. The electoral college actually gives less populous states such as Montana an advantage. To continue, South Dakota represents only 0.26% of the US population, and North Dakota represents only 0.21%. But both of those states still have 3 electoral votes, or the same 0.56% as Montana -- this more than doubles their pull in the election with the electoral college over a simple popular vote. It sounds like a small difference, but the 3 states together would combine for about 0.79% of the total US population, while carrying 9 total electoral votes, about 1.67% of the total.

The electoral college was created as a compromise to appease those pushing for states' rights and state power. Maybe it's not the best way to do things -- maybe a simple, total popular vote would be better. But there's no arguing that the electoral college gives more weight to the vote of a single voter in Wyoming than one in California. (California, by the way, represents 11.91% of the US population, yet carries about 10.22% of the electoral votes).

You can argue that but I don't think its fair on some states, especially those who vote for one party all the time, like if you vote democrat in texas you are practically wasting your vote, even though it's a major party! I'm not denying what you said but I think it's time to get rid of the electoral college system in favour of the popular vote. 

Realistically, the Electoral College isn't going anywhere though. One of the main reason it was put in place was to make sure presidential elections were not national. They wanted to preserve the federal nature of the system, with both the national and state governments possessing power. SImply, the Electoral College is a core part of the United States' federal system, and it isn't going anywhere.



the2real4mafol said:
Despite Obama's win i wish they did the clean sweep and got the house alongside the senate, that would of been awesome. But does it matter? Which is more important for the democrats to have, the house or the senate?

Both, I think; sufficient obstructionism in either is enough to derail, or at least heavily stall, any program.



Me, when I found out: *Sigh of relief* -_-



@Electoral College

The United States is a Union. Each state has a right to allocate its votes as it sees fit. Not just to benefit the nation as a whole, but in the way that is most beneficial to the state. When a state casts its votes as a block it is making the case to a national candidate that they have to work hard to win that block of votes. That means doing more for that state. Whereas if a state chooses to parcel its vote based on the popular vote the national candidate is almost sure to put far less effort into appeasing the citizens of that state.

To put it mildly a bigger prize won narrowly carries more weight then a prize where you can get just a sliver more then the other guy. That means that splitting your states vote actually reduces your leverage in a election. Your vote becomes worth less. Even more important then that however is the following. Every person in a given state is valued whether they vote for a candidate or not.

You may dismiss those that refuse to vote out of hand, but that is a choice they are making. Not participating isn't a argument for them being devalued. When you vote in a block vote their voting power is added to your own. So even if they aren't voting. Their welfare is still being safe guarded by you the voter. When you block vote you all speak as one, and that means the national candidate has to pay more attention to you. Whether you are excited, or outright lethargic about the contest.

The Electoral College does its job, and the members take their jobs seriously. It isn't just about being a delivery man. They exist to act as a bulwark against the unanticipated. They ensure that no matter what we will have a continuation of leadership. Thankfully we have never had to rely on that back up, but it is good that we have one in place.

Hey I have nothing against a popular vote system, and I actively encourage you to petition your State government to enact such a system for your state. That said who are you to tell my State how it should, or should not vote. If you want to waste your vote go right ahead, and I will gladly accept the value add that my vote will get in return for that. Leave my State out of your crazy little scheme.



Around the Network

Aww poor trumpy aww!- I love how a ultra conservative now wants a revolution because of Obama, they say anything to get attention these days!

 

@realDonaldTrump: "The election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

@realDonaldTrump: "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

@realDonaldTrump: "He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"

@realDonaldTrump: "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!"

 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
4 years from now, I don't think you're going to be as happy as you are tonight.


It'll be fun watching the country and how it deals with a ~$20 trillion debt and higher interest rates.

True.  However, to be fair, lest be honest...

it probably wouldn't of been any different with Romney anyway.  All tough talk aside.


To be fair I'd say Romney had some 35% chance of keeping the debt stable with his economic policies. The question still to be answered is in the hands of which party will the bomb explode. 

But the way things are going, I'd say it's clear that the "majority" and "privileged" white america is neither of these and probably isn't going to elect any republican president anymore, ever... so yeah.



 

 

 

 

 

Dodece said:
@Electoral College

The United States is a Union. Each state has a right to allocate its votes as it sees fit. Not just to benefit the nation as a whole, but in the way that is most beneficial to the state. When a state casts its votes as a block it is making the case to a national candidate that they have to work hard to win that block of votes. That means doing more for that state. Whereas if a state chooses to parcel its vote based on the popular vote the national candidate is almost sure to put far less effort into appeasing the citizens of that state.

To put it mildly a bigger prize won narrowly carries more weight then a prize where you can get just a sliver more then the other guy. That means that splitting your states vote actually reduces your leverage in a election. Your vote becomes worth less. Even more important then that however is the following. Every person in a given state is valued whether they vote for a candidate or not.

You may dismiss those that refuse to vote out of hand, but that is a choice they are making. Not participating isn't a argument for them being devalued. When you vote in a block vote their voting power is added to your own. So even if they aren't voting. Their welfare is still being safe guarded by you the voter. When you block vote you all speak as one, and that means the national candidate has to pay more attention to you. Whether you are excited, or outright lethargic about the contest.

The Electoral College does its job, and the members take their jobs seriously. It isn't just about being a delivery man. They exist to act as a bulwark against the unanticipated. They ensure that no matter what we will have a continuation of leadership. Thankfully we have never had to rely on that back up, but it is good that we have one in place.

Hey I have nothing against a popular vote system, and I actively encourage you to petition your State government to enact such a system for your state. That said who are you to tell my State how it should, or should not vote. If you want to waste your vote go right ahead, and I will gladly accept the value add that my vote will get in return for that. Leave my State out of your crazy little scheme.

You should post more often. Insightful stuff.

(no, not being sarcastic)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:

( )

Yo Mr Khan, what are your thoughts about the elections?



 

 

 

 

 

Wait, since when did Obama lose the popular vote, let alone by "a lot"?