|
pathetic little tramp posted:Exactly. I mean, what's even the reasoning of these four? Nevada is a hellhole hemorrhaging jobs because it turns out gambling isn't a sustainable economy when other states legalise it, South Carolina is South Carolina, Iowa at least has some agricultural leanings, and New Hampshire is see previous post. Nevada has a large latino population, South Carolina has a large black population. Helps counteract that Iowa and New Hampshire are like 99% white.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
I thought Cornell was the dumbest Ivy League school... But anyway, I wonder if Kucinich might run for president in 2016? He seems like he's remained politically active and I admire the stances that he has been willing to take on foreign policy issues. Besides Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, who else might try to run for the Democratic nomination as a left-of-Obama/Clinton candidate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Exactly. I mean, what's even the reasoning of these four? Nevada is a hellhole hemorrhaging jobs because it turns out gambling isn't a sustainable economy when other states legalise it, South Carolina is South Carolina, Iowa at least has some agricultural leanings, and New Hampshire is see previous post. They are all very different states and, aside from the fact that none of them have populations who work in resource extraction (well, Nevada is debatable but at least in the Dem half of it those votes are easily counter-acted by service workers,) do a pretty great job of representing the country as a whole. If I were to have to pick four small states I might make a change or two but they actually did very well picking what they did. And they do have to be small states, you mention California and Texas but the whole point is that you want candidates with less money to be able to compete and the way they do that is old fashioned barnstorming, impossible in the larger states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:But Bruce Rauner went to Dartmouth, clearly it's a great school. I misread that as Bruce Banner and was momentarily more excited than I should have been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I thought Cornell was the dumbest Ivy League school... Yeah, I'm sure his pro-Assad activities will go over well. What bravery. Seriously, you can be anti-war without going to hang out with him and then say you trust and believe in his commitment to human rights. A better thing to do would be, for instance, nothing. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are all very different states and, aside from the fact that none of them have populations who work in resource extraction (well, Nevada is debatable but at least in the Dem half of it those votes are easily counter-acted by service workers,) do a pretty great job of representing the country as a whole. If I were to have to pick four small states I might make a change or two but they actually did very well picking what they did. And they do have to be small states, you mention California and Texas but the whole point is that you want candidates with less money to be able to compete and the way they do that is old fashioned barnstorming, impossible in the larger states. Okay that makes sense - we do want small states to open the playing field, but why not at least switch it up every four years? This time is Iowa,NH,Nevada,SC. Next time we get Nebraska,WV,Oregon,Louisiana. Wouldn't that make more sense long term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Okay that makes sense - we do want small states to open the playing field, but why not at least switch it up every four years? This time is Iowa,NH,Nevada,SC. Next time we get Nebraska,WV,Oregon,Louisiana. Wouldn't that make more sense long term? American political institutions and practices generally don't make sense; change is extremely difficult, and inertia is among the most potent forces in all of Washington. Why do you think we still have Tuesday elections and the electoral college?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
AYC posted:American political institutions and practices generally don't make sense; change is extremely difficult, and inertia is among the most potent forces in all of Washington. Because changing it would disproprtionately benefit one party over the other. When changing rules benefits both parties, you find the rules much easier to bend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Right here is the truest poo poo because literally in the United States, 5 or so states control the narrative entirely every four years. To be elected president of the entire country you first have to be elected leader of the party by some of the most irrelevant and full-of-idiot states in the nation. At least if it were California or Texas, it'd be representative. Didn't one of the states try to move their primary up so they would have more of a say and that led to them getting blackballed or something? If it makes you feel any better Florida likes to dare both the Democratic and Republican parties to do something about it moving it's primary up to a relevant date. We don't give a gently caress because what are they going to do, actually tell the largest swing state to gently caress off?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Okay that makes sense - we do want small states to open the playing field, but why not at least switch it up every four years? This time is Iowa,NH,Nevada,SC. Next time we get Nebraska,WV,Oregon,Louisiana. Wouldn't that make more sense long term? Iowa and NH refuse to give up their spot and you can't really make them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Iowa and NH refuse to give up their spot and you can't really make them. Well, I mean, technically, yeah. You can. Same way you make the other states not move earlier (threaten to ignore all or a good chunk of their results)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Well, I mean, technically, yeah. You can. Same way you make the other states not move earlier (threaten to ignore all or a good chunk of their results) It becomes more a matter of whether or not completely making GBS threads all over Iowa and New Hampshire is really worth it. Shifting the opening primaries around to other states would be nice, but not really that crucial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Well, I mean, technically, yeah. You can. Same way you make the other states not move earlier (threaten to ignore all or a good chunk of their results) Candidates would still pay attention for the publicity (see: Florida 08 where it actually went all the way to the convention before deciding that the delegates would be allowed to be seated.) Just as important is that those two states in particular (South Carolina too sort of but Nevada is a joke) have populations that know and understand the voting process very well and are comfortable with it. They could conceivably move their election to Tuesday next week and everyone would already know what to do. That's given them a real leg up whenever another state has tried to unilaterally move into their turf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
It's party rules that dictate primary/caucus dates, not federal law. Parties could change the dates independently-- but some state governments pay for the ballots for the primaries, so they'd need the state governments to comply in those instances, unless the parties wanted to pay for the ballots themselves. In 2008, Florida moved up its primary uninvited. The Republicans chose to allow it and recognize the results, and all the candidates campaigned in the state. You'll remember that Giuliani retreated there and bet his house on it. The Democratic party initially chose to reject the results from Florida (and there was no campaign there except for Clinton's) but then later chose to half-recognize them. For example, the DNC could tell the West Virginia Democratic Party that it could hold early presidential caucuses. There's nothing really preventing it, other than the risk of pissing off Iowa and New Hampshire voters. (Just an example, since it was mentioned before, but I wonder if a good ground effort across that state might work for the party the way it did for Kennedy in the 1960 primaries.) Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
But do the votes of NH and Iowa really matter in the long term? Even if you pissed off them enough that the states swung for one election, its only 10 electoral votes, total. How many presidential elections come down to 10 electoral votes? Now, I can see pissing them off affecting the state and local elections a bit more than national elections. But those elections tend to have far more to do with the election cycle than anything apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
If Gore had won New Hampshire in 2000, he would have been President. It came down to 3 electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:If Gore had won New Hampshire in 2000, he would have been President. It came down to 3 electoral votes. Which is very much an outlier, historically. The last election where 10 votes would have mattered besides 2000 was 1876, 185-184 for Hayes versus Tilden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Michigan Republicans have already changed their rules and set the date for their primary for March 15, 2016. The purpose of the rule change is to take advantage of the new rules the RNC set for when a presidential primary can be a winner take all vote. Republicans are trying to make Michigan more important in the 2016 race and draw in presidential candidates to their 60 delegates. It's pretty telling that in the primary race they understand winner take all makes the state more relevant, but then in the general some of them think splitting electoral votes is a good idea. It's the tea party faction that wants that. Snyder won't let it happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
The closest states in 2012 were North Carolina (R), Virginia (D), Ohio (D), and Florida (D). If the only change in 2016 was that the Republicans swept those states-- not unlikely-- Democrats would still win 272-268.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The closest states in 2012 were North Carolina (R), Virginia (D), Ohio (D), and Florida (D). Assume the Republicans win those closest states and Michigan approptiates electoral college delegates based upon congressional district, whats the the math look like then? Further, how many votes would they have to persuade in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida if that plan pushes them over 270?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
The guy who is sponsoring the Michigan EV plan didn't even run again this year. They get a vote on it Monday, which will probably fail and which Snyder will veto even if it doesn't and then he's out of the legislature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
VA would be a great place for the parties to hold early primaries so that they can get the candidates in there and hopefully have them test their own GOTV efforts on the State Senate elections in 2015. The downside is that, with a state or federal election here every year, you risk voter fatigue and/or taking attention away from the VA elections in favor of presidential debates and events .
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
All the proportional EV plans seem to fall apart on the basis of "no seriously this time we can really win all of it! why let the other party keep half?".
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:All the proportional EV plans seem to fall apart on the basis of "no seriously this time we can really win all of it! why let the other party keep half?". Proportional EV plans in non-competitive states with media markets which overlap battleground states makes some bit of economic sense for state-level legislators, while making less sense for statewide officer holders and individuals with districts outside competitive media markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
If all the states allotted EV's proportionally, would Romney have won?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:If all the states allotted EV's proportionally, would Romney have won? Proportionally by House district? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:If all the states allotted EV's proportionally, would Romney have won? Depends on the proportional scheme. The old Michigan idea was proportional by congressional district, which would have allowed Romney to win 226-209, but the new one is proportional based on the popular vote total.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:If all the states allotted EV's proportionally, would Romney have won? Yes. It was the first time the winner of the popular vote lost a majority of CDs. http://cookpolitical.com/story/5606
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
State ... D votes - R votes ... (margin) FL... 4,237,756 - 4,163,447 ...... (~74,000) D+0.88% VA... 1,971,820 - 1,822,522 ...... (~149,000) D+2.98% OH... 2,827,710 - 2,661,433 ...... (~166,000) D+3.87% I had to look up the Michigan apportionment proposal. I had assumed it was Maine/Nebraska style, but it's different. It just shaves off a couple delegates to the losing party unless it's a 20-point blowout, effectively reducing Michigan's 15 electoral votes to 9 plus change. If it had been in effect in 2012, Obama would have gotten 12 EVs and Romney would have gotten 3, despite the 10-point landslide being Obama's 8th biggest margin. (The 2014 Michigan Senate race resulted in a similar margin for the Democrats.) But, yeah, if it passed, that would send the Republican over the top, as long as the Republican wins in FL, VA, NC, and OH and no other states pass similar legislation to water down their own EVs. Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:VA would be a great place for the parties to hold early primaries so that they can get the candidates in there and hopefully have them test their own GOTV efforts on the State Senate elections in 2015. Honestly, if they come and do the primary stuff in 2015 and just randomly toss a "hey go vote this Nov. too" thing out there, we'd come out ahead no matter how much noise they made. If they get Dems to show up at their polling place, then the local Parties will put a sample ballot in their hands and hopefully they go straight-D (this would mark the first time sample balloting has been useful). I used to care about honest discussion of the issues or wanting all the races and candidates to get full and serious consideration from the voters, but then I realized that the radicalization of the Republican Party means that the differences are stark enough that a cursory glance tells a lot of voters what they need to know. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Remind me, is Represent.us the group that that stupid guy was trying to promote on the forums? I got invited to some event for a new chapter here. I know this group is Lessig-related, and I think his was too? What was the problem with them? The release promotes them working with Occupy and the Tea Party, which is basically about the worst combination of people I can imagine trying to work with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:The release promotes them working with Occupy and the Tea Party, which is basically about the worst combination of people I can imagine trying to work with. "I can trace my roots back to the Mayflower and demand my rights to punch a scullery maid in the teeth be returned to me!" Ok then, you are up first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Remind me, is Represent.us the group that that stupid guy was trying to promote on the forums? I got invited to some event for a new chapter here. That was MayOne. Unless they're both related, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That was MayOne. Unless they're both related, of course. I can't keep them straight. Lessig is related to both, and they had some link to Aaron Swartz's group, and there's the "Super PAC to end Super PACs," but there's the "Anti-Corruption Pledge" and the "Anti-Corruption Act" and "Move To Amend" and I have no idea. Apparently the person to contact here is a former PIRG staffer which I'm down with but it all seems so drat convoluted right now. This group claims credit for passing local anti-corruption bills. Maybe that's their thing, and not electoral work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:VA would be a great place for the parties to hold early primaries so that they can get the candidates in there and hopefully have them test their own GOTV efforts on the State Senate elections in 2015. Virginia is interesting in that includes part of Appalachia, lots of government/white collar workers and urban blacks and military folks while still also maintaining every unique demographic that South Carolina brings to the table (rural black people and southern whites.) With so many government workers the state is also more educated on the "logic" of governing too, they'd make for pretty informed voters. I could see you make a pretty compelling case for switching SC out for it. Indeed doing so would also excise the only "non-swing" state to currently get these privileges, though SC's Democratic electorate has always been significantly different than the state as a whole- to the point that informed people never really bring this so-called bias up in conversation. The only problem is that its big enough to start pushing out smaller/poorer candidates and is only set to grow even bigger in the future. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I can't keep them straight. Lessig is related to both, and they had some link to Aaron Swartz's group, and there's the "Super PAC to end Super PACs," but there's the "Anti-Corruption Pledge" and the "Anti-Corruption Act" and "Move To Amend" and I have no idea. Anti-corruption bills? In my Virginia? It's more likely than you think. I found this about Represent.Us, accusing them of conflating "dependence corruption" with actually taking bribes. Plus the sorts of web ads where they accuse folks of taking quid-pro-quo bribes just because they took campaign contributions without any actual evidence of a "quo pro". So they're certainly aggressively messaging and playing fast-and-loose with the facts to get attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
I'm generally skeptical of "lobby reform" because it seems to be assumed by liberals supporting them that a neutral state of governing w/o lobbyists would favor them. As if only money is influencing and it only moves things towards Wall Street because it's money. Sure those groups have more money, but at least if you allow lobbying and regulate it, someone passionate about a little-cared about cause like homeless youth or an odd regulation on local watershed maintenance or some random steel mill has a voice, too. They're more likely going to listen to a lobby group than a bunch of obnoxious letters. At the heart is this assumption that without money, people are naturally logical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I'm generally skeptical of "lobby reform" because it seems to be assumed by liberals supporting them that a neutral state of governing w/o lobbyists would favor them. As if only money is influencing and it only moves things towards Wall Street because it's money. I think you're for regulating lobbyists as per your second paragraph, which lobby reform aims to do. It just aims to regulate them better, not outright ban the practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I think you're for regulating lobbyists as per your second paragraph, which lobby reform aims to do. It just aims to regulate them better, not outright ban the practice. You 'reform' lobbying too much without addressing the underlying issues, all you do is push more money through unofficial channels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I'm generally skeptical of "lobby reform" because it seems to be assumed by liberals supporting them that a neutral state of governing w/o lobbyists would favor them. As if only money is influencing and it only moves things towards Wall Street because it's money. To add on to this, the Koch Brothers/the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are already a step ahead on this game - pushing their views through law schools and economics departments so that if they can't directly influence legislators at least they'll be molding them as they come into the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 22:42
|
|