RealGM

Please, please, contain your brilliant and lively thoughts on politics to this topic. We wouldn't want the other topics to infect such important discussion!

I think both candidates are poor choices

is it more important to discuss the candidates ore the issues that divide america? isn't that the inherent flaw with our current political process? that and the electoral college.

pancakes3 wrote:is it more important to discuss the candidates ore the issues that divide america? isn't that the inherent flaw with our current political process? that and the electoral college.

Yeah, I just don't understand the need for the electoral college in today's politics.

What's the problem with a majority vote being the only factor?

Can we have the power plant etc discussion spliced and merged to here from the Random thoughts thread. It'd be good to be able to find it later.

doclinkin wrote:Can we have the power plant etc discussion spliced and merged to here from the Random thoughts thread. It'd be good to be able to find it later.

I've spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out how to split certain posts and merge them into a new thread but cannot figure it out, due to the site change. The old system was much easier in this respect, as I did it all the time back then.

If any other Wiz-Board mod wants to take a crack at it, be my guest.

The purpose of the electoral college is akin to why we have the senate in addition to the house--To make sure that every state is given a voice. If we had a popular vote then the candidates' campaign trail would be the list of the largest cities in the country. No one would make the trip to Alaska, Delaware, Dakotas, etc when LA, New York, Chicago, etc have larger populations than these states.

miller31time wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:is it more important to discuss the candidates ore the issues that divide america? isn't that the inherent flaw with our current political process? that and the electoral college.

Yeah, I just don't understand the need for the electoral college in today's politics.

What's the problem with a majority vote being the only factor?

because the government still wants to control the process one way or another. god forbid "the people" actually decide who the winner is.

Rudy said Palin has more executive experience than both dems on the ticket. Ha ha, so she has more than McCain to. Rudy is clueless.

MF23 wrote:Rudy said Palin has more executive experience than both dems on the ticket. Ha ha, so she has more than McCain to. Rudy is clueless.

I know...every time they say that, you can say the exact same about their #1 option.

Rudy was so full of **** in his speech. Just ridiculously over the top. The last thing he should be doing is telling someone else how to run a campaign.

Wow! As an independent voter (I dont belong to either the Dem or Rep party), I find the Republican convention so far to not represent the type of govt I want. These guys are just very obnoxious. That pit bull attack by Giuliani to be what I consider one of the wrongs of our country. Surely, we can state our differences without a back-handed slap. I had wanted to be open minded to Palin, especially since I didnt know anything about her, but I couldnt be after hearing Giuliani. I'll have to listen to just Palin speak at another time...maybe catch it on You-Tube.

The only thing I really feel about this election is that if Barack were white and with all else the same there'd be no question as to him being the next president. Charisma, class, brains--all in stark contrast to W. He'd be such a refreshing change of pace ...

McCain's old as hell and voted identically to the current inept president. The thing IMO he's got to offer is he keeps the White House white--that's his appeal to many of the masses if not on a conscious level, on an unconscious one.

I'm admittedly IGNORANT of most of the salient issues being bantered about.

I believe Bush will send poor folks to war but that he and his kids have led priveleged lives and will continue to do so. McCain did serve and quite bravely. I know he at least has a pair of brass balls, but that dude scares me.

He'd send his own to die. He's old but not wise when it comes to Iraq.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:The only thing I really feel about this election is that if Barack were white and with all else the same there'd be no question as to him being the next president. Charisma, class, brains--all in stark contrast to W. He'd be such a refreshing change of pace ...

Please.

The criticisms of Obama have nothing to do with race. The bottom line is that he has minimal experience, no record of accomplishments and a preciously limited voting record (he votes "present" an astonishingly high proportion of the time). All we know about Obama is that he is a good speaker. Yes, he has attempted to lay out some of his agenda, but that agenda doesn't always match his previous voting record so there is a credibility problem there. The Republicans are correct in their stategy to attack Obama on these deficiencies.

Obviously, if you are a liberal, you're going to vote for Obama anyhow. If you are a conservative, you're going to vote for McCain. But there exists a large subset of people who don't have strong opinions on the issues; and they base their votes on their assessment of the character and experience of the candidate. Obama has an achilles heel there. It's perfectly reasonable, appropriate, and shrewd of the Republicans to attack his vulnerabilities.

So I'm going to avoid arguing in this thread, but I wonder if Nate wouldn't mind elaborating a bit on some of his arguments, just for a better sense of the context of his arguments.

nate33 wrote:a preciously limited voting record (he votes "present" an astonishingly high proportion of the time).

Here is an article on Obama's "present" votes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/po ... obama.html

What, in particular, do you find objectionable about the practice?

nate33 wrote:All we know about Obama is that he is a good speaker.

Are there specific questions you have about Obama's agenda, or is your concern more general?

nate33 wrote:Yes, he has attempted to lay out some of his agenda, but that agenda doesn't always match his previous voting record so there is a credibility problem there.

What inconsistencies are you referring to? And if he has a credibility problem, is it actually the case that Obama's "unknowns" can't be addressed by any level of explicit policy detail?

miller31time wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:is it more important to discuss the candidates ore the issues that divide america? isn't that the inherent flaw with our current political process? that and the electoral college.

Yeah, I just don't understand the need for the electoral college in today's politics.

What's the problem with a majority vote being the only factor?

Agree that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness.

One solution I heard about was for each state to pass a law saying
that state will cast its electotral votes for the popular vote winner
but only if enough other states (totalling more than 270 electoral votes)
do the same thing.... or something to that effect. Doesn't require constitutional
amendment as each state is already empowered to figure out it's own system
for casting votes in the electoral college.

Isn't the point of the electoral college to protect the president from the people. It creates a buffer for him while he was in office. It allows the president to do things that the people are not happy about because he doesn't answer directly to them. Where if we went by popular vote he would.

An example would be Ford giving nixon his pardon.

I don't really agree with this point I am making but that is the argument I hear a lot from its defenders.

No the point of the electoral college is that you don't want the decision who should run our country made by the same people who make Wife Swap or Jerry Springer high rated shows. It is to allow more educated individuals the ability to influence the election process. What protects us right now is the fact that politics is soooo deadly boring compared to Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown or whatever that the majority of people ignore it and allow elections to be determined by folks who actually know enough to care, or think they should care. Not saying right or wrong, just saying, that's the idea.

There are serious issues with the electoral college, and should there arise another serious discrepancy between the popular vote winner and the by-the-rules winner, there will probably be dramatic change. The electoral college's continued existence basically depends on its not having any impact on the outcome.

That said, it really does change the political dynamic in a bizarre way. The political fetishization of the Appalachian-cultured folk in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the obsequious pandering to the Cuba lobby, the right's anti-city rhetoric -- none of that would make sense without the electoral college. It's almost inconceivable to win the electoral college vote with neither Pennsylvania or Ohio; both states are fairly unique combinations of older urban cores, rural conservatism, and religious fundamentalism. Those states' voter preferences act as a filter on the national process, which accounts for why Obama's victory over Clinton was so unprecedented.

I'm one of those people. Grew up in Covington, KY, across the river from Cincinnati. Appalachian stock. Raised conservative Catholic. I appreciate the cultural solidarity here, but it really doesn't inspire confidence that my ethnic cohort has so much pull in national elections.

doclinkin wrote:No the point of the electoral college is that you don't want the decision who should run our country made by the same people who make Wife Swap or Jerry Springer high rated shows. It is to allow more educated individuals the ability to influence the election process. What protects us right now is the fact that politics is soooo deadly boring compared to Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown or whatever that the majority of people ignore it and allow elections to be determined by folks who actually know enough to care, or think they should care. Not saying right or wrong, just saying, that's the idea.

If the electoral college and all of it's educated individuals were scrapped, we'd have 8 less years of Dubya and 4-8 years of Al Gore. Sometimes, the majority gets it right.

I'm sure there's an excellent rebuttal to this pointing to past elections, but I did mention that in "today's politics", I don't see a need for it.