NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state. How can the Republican Party rebuild itself? Or should it's members just disband it and form a new party?

Personally, I think that if there are any Republicans brave enough to stay on, they should overthrow the Republican leadership and reboot the party as either a centre-right or far left party.

Or an extreme right party. With the economic hardships ahead, fascism will be a big hit. Brown shirts for everyone!

Well, what did the Democrats do when Reagan got elected? They dithered around for a bit, people retired and a new guard took over and eventually got elected in the person of Bill Clinton.

Same thing will happen here. Although an extended recession during Obama's term means anything could happen.

Nah, the Republicans are fucked. They're not going to win anything unless they completely tear down everything and replace it. There's no new guard to save them.

Given that you know absolutely nothing about US Politics, forgive me if I find your analysis unlikely.

Nah, the Republicans are fucked. They're not going to win anything unless they completely tear down everything and replace it. There's no new guard to save them.
It took the Democrats 12 years. Have some patience - the basic premises of individual autonomy, low taxes and so on are still widespread in the US. As is all sorts of religious and moral outrage and huffing and puffing, and the whole "let's kick some foreign ass!" thing.

I'd hope the next generation of Republican leaders will be picking up on the former, but we'll see. Suffice to say that there is plenty of space the Democrats can't occupy that voters sympathise with. It's simply that the current crop of Republican politicians, as well as the economic and political global climate, mean the party can't fill it.

I dunno, the party as a whole looks pretty incompetent. It would be easier, and quicker, to just refocus the party as a far left party, no?

I dunno, the party as a whole looks pretty incompetent. It would be easier, and quicker, to just refocus the party as a far left party, no?

FO, BOTH parties look pretty incompetent, as a whole.

I dunno, the party as a whole looks pretty incompetent. It would be easier, and quicker, to just refocus the party as a far left party, no?

No.

How do you argue taking the GOP from an organisation at present increasingly reliant on its hard-right core vote to a far left party?

Which constituent groups currently voting Republican do you see voting for a far left Republican party?

Which current party leaders, advisors, and other party figures do you see making the transition from a right of centre party to the far left?

Assuming you see this taking place before the next US Presidential election, how would you justify the ideological contortions necessary to voters?

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state. How can the Republican Party rebuild itself? Or should it's members just disband it and form a new party?

Personally, I think that if there are any Republicans brave enough to stay on, they should overthrow the Republican leadership and reboot the party as either a centre-right or far left party.
Nah, the Republicans are fucked. They're not going to win anything unless they completely tear down everything and replace it. There's no new guard to save them.
I dunno, the party as a whole looks pretty incompetent. It would be easier, and quicker, to just refocus the party as a far left party, no?
Could you get back under your /b/ridge and leave us be?

No.

How do you argue taking the GOP from an organisation at present increasingly reliant on its hard-right core vote to a far left party?

Which constituent groups currently voting Republican do you see voting for a far left Republican party?

Which current party leaders, advisors, and other party figures do you see making the transition from a right of centre party to the far left?

Assuming you see this taking place before the next US Presidential election, how would you justify the ideological contortions necessary to voters?

Being left worked for the Democrats, thus, the Republicans can win if they're even more left. It makes sense to me.

Being left worked for the Democrats, thus, the Republicans can win if they're even more left. It makes sense to me.

Except the Democrats aren't left. They're just lefter. :p

Being left worked for the Democrats, thus, the Republicans can win if they're even more left. It makes sense to me.

Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump.

Well, it's what I'd do if I was in charge. If they didn't want what the Republicans are offering this time, or last time, or the three times before that, why would they want it next time? Might as well scrap the whole thing and start again.

Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY

:D

Well, it's what I'd do if I was in charge. If they didn't want what the Republicans are offering this time, or last time, or the three times before that, why would they want it next time? Might as well scrap the whole thing and start again.

The Republicans got elected the last time, and the time before that. So, what in the world are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY

:D
Exactly.:tongue:

The Republicans got elected the last time, and the time before that. So, what in the world are you talking about?

Sure they did. Everybody knows about Florida. AND Iowa.

But the people DID want what the Republicans were selling last time. AND the time before that.

This is a fairly left wing forum. It reflects left-wing views, for the most part. What people here tend to forget is that the US populace, as a whole, is a lot farther right than NS Gen is.

Sure they did. Everybody knows about Florida. AND Iowa.

...

*sigh*

But the people DID want what the Republicans were selling last time. AND the time before that.

2000 US presidential election, popular vote:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

This thread makes my brain hurt.

Sure they did. Everybody knows about Florida. AND Iowa.

Florida was a fuckup by the state government. And it didn't matter anyway - unless the whole mess had come out as a clear victory for Gore, Bush was going to win, thanks to the Reps holding the Congress.

2000 US presidential election, popular vote:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

So when arguing out that people in 2000 didn't want the Republicans in power, pointing out that more people voted for the Dems that the GOP is irrelevant?

2000 US presidential election, popular vote:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

Leaders aren't elected by popular vote in the US.

So when arguing out that people in 2000 didn't want the Republicans in power, pointing out that more people voted for the Dems that the GOP is irrelevant?

Pointing out that it was a mess-up by the Florida state government makes it irrelevant, because that data is no longer accurate.

I think after Bush, the republicans will have lost all credibility with the rest of the world. Internally, I think they won't be too highly looked upon after an Obama victory.

However, if, god forbid, McBush were to win, it would be a validation of the past 8 years, and the Republican party would be stronger than ever. After having got away with murder (metaphorically speaking), they will think they can get away with anything, and they will damn well try. Which is why it is so vitally important that McBush lose, and by a lot.

So when arguing out that people in 2000 didn't want the Republicans in power, pointing out that more people voted for the Dems that the GOP is irrelevant?

Yup. Raw numbers mean nothing, in a system where the President is not directly elected.

All it indicates is that the two candidates were closely matched, which we could get from the number of SEATS won at the College - a number which is actually relevant.

And at any rate, you can hardly say the people didn't want Bush when the numbers were effectively equal.

Leaders aren't elected by popular vote in the US.

Nevertheless, more people wanted the Dems. Reality doesn't suddenly shift because the flawed electoral college system says otherwise.

I think after Bush, the republicans will have lost all credibility with the rest of the world. Internally, I think they won't be too highly looked upon after an Obama victory.

However, if, god forbid, McBush were to win, it would be a validation of the past 8 years, and the Republican party would be stronger than ever. After having got away with murder (metaphorically speaking), they will think they can get away with anything, and they will damn well try. Which is why it is so vitally important that McBush lose, and by a lot.

And there's your reason for completely reforming the Republican party.

Nevertheless, more people wanted the Dems. Reality doesn't suddenly shift because the flawed electoral college system says otherwise.

No flaws in the Electoral College system. It does it's job well - ensures that the populous states don't have all the say in electing the President.

And makes raw numbers pointless. Victory is based on the number of states you take and their relative value, not how many votes are cast.

Not to mention, that since the US elections tend to be low-turnout, the votes of those who do vote are not an accurate representation of the will of the general populace. As far as I'm concerned, non-voters are morons who deserve everything they get, but they still have their own ideas of who should run the country.

But the populous states ACTUALLY contain more people.

But the populous states ACTUALLY contain more people.

So?

But the populous states ACTUALLY contain more people.

Tyranny by majority does not make it right.

The first elections were federalist vs democratic-republicans
[1824-1828 goes here]
Then old democrats vs whigs
[~1854 slavery discussions]
Then old democrats vs old republicans
[civil rights act of 1964]
Then new democrats vs new republicans
[Dubya's unparaqlleled incompetence of 2001-2009]
Maybe it's time to replace the republicans with, y'know, someone less obsessed with religion?

So?

Bear in mind he doesn't seem to actually understand the American system of governance and in fact in a separate thread referred to it as the worst system he's ever heard of.

Bear in mind he doesn't seem to actually understand the American system of governance and in fact in a separate thread referred to it as the worst system he's ever heard of.

Huh. He should take a look at the Australian one some time...

Bear in mind he doesn't seem to actually understand the American system of governance and in fact in a separate thread referred to it as the worst system he's ever heard of.

While simultaneously saying he doesn't care.

The sad part is, I'm pretty sure he thinks he's hilarious.

So?
So he has a quite egalitarian and individualist view here, whether he sees it that way or not.

Of course, this whole discussion could be cut short...

Presidential Election, 2004:
Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry 59,028,444 (48.3%)

The first elections were federalist vs democratic-republicans
[1824-1828 goes here]
Then old democrats vs whigs
[~1854 slavery discussions]
Then old democrats vs old republicans
[civil rights act of 1964]
Then new democrats vs new republicans
[Dubya's unparaqlleled incompetence of 2001-2009]
Maybe it's time to replace the republicans with, y'know, someone less obsessed with religion?
*whispers* Bring back the Democratic-Republican party!

Huh. He should take a look at the Australian one some time...

What... preferential voting where the party (read: the group, not the one guy) with the most seats takes power? That kicks the crap out of the American system.

*whispers* Bring back the Democratic-Republican party!

If I recall correctly, it's still around. After the Whigs imploded, the Dem-Reps just started calling themselves the Democrats.

So he has a quite egalitarian and individualist view here, whether he sees it that way or not.

Of course, this whole discussion could be cut short...

Presidential Election, 2004:
Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry 59,028,444 (48.3%)

Yeah, that was a convincing victory for Bush.

The first elections were federalist vs democratic-republicans
[1824-1828 goes here]
Then old democrats vs whigs
[~1854 slavery discussions]
Then old democrats vs old republicans
[civil rights act of 1964]
Then new democrats vs new republicans
[Dubya's unparaqlleled incompetence of 2001-2009]
Maybe it's time to replace the republicans with, y'know, someone less obsessed with religion?

European socialist platform, ala the Socialist Unity Party of Germany.

What... preferential voting where the party (read: the group, not the one guy) with the most seats takes power? That kicks the crap out of the American system.

Mmm. A system designed to ensure domination by two parties, that effectively elects a dictatorship, and which EXPLICITELY gives the Parliament the right to restrict the franchise?

Not for me, thanks, for all that I like living here.

If I recall correctly, it's still around. After the Whigs imploded, the Dem-Reps just started calling themselves the Democrats.

Bah. It's not the same. It's like after Warcraft ceased to be awesome when they changed several core components of it.

The Game/Party just isn't the same, if all you keep is part of the name.:(

Mmm. A system designed to ensure domination by two parties, that effectively elects a dictatorship, and which EXPLICITELY gives the Parliament the right to restrict the franchise?

Not for me, thanks, for all that I like living here.

Except that there are three parties; two of them have a coalition together. Australian "third parties" have come closer to getting anything than any US third party I can think of.

Given how remarkably little things change no matter which party is in power, I can't see any reason to tweak ideologies.

You're operating under the assumption that Republicans and Democrats are enemies rather than business partners.

If I understand the OP's argument, he seems to be stating that even vaguely consistent ideology between elections should be considered secondary to the pursuit of power.

Re-wording, it would be acceptable for a party to complete a 180 degree change of tack on every single substantive issue so long as it brought a return to power closer.

Presumably it's also therefore acceptable to cynically jettison all of the people who've previously voted for you so long as you attract the new voters who'll get you elected.

It's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure it'll win many elections outside, perhaps, of the occasional third world country where personality trumps ideology even more consistently than in the west.

Of course political parties and individuals change their minds on issues, whether out of a desire to increase electability or even sometimes out of principle, but I'm struggling to recall an example in a Western country in the last 50 years where a party went from being fairly right wing to far left over a single election cycle and increased its chances of getting elected as a result.

Maybe someone else can enlighten me.

It took the Democrats 12 years. Have some patience - the basic premises of individual autonomy, low taxes and so on are still widespread in the US. As is all sorts of religious and moral outrage and huffing and puffing, and the whole "let's kick some foreign ass!" thing.

I'd hope the next generation of Republican leaders will be picking up on the former, but we'll see. Suffice to say that there is plenty of space the Democrats can't occupy that voters sympathise with. It's simply that the current crop of Republican politicians, as well as the economic and political global climate, mean the party can't fill it.

What worries me a bit is that a lot of the Barry-Goldwater, small-government, low-tax Republicans are old. At least the ones I can think of. If anybody's going to retire, it'll be that group. (Grover Norquist is young, but he doesn't count because ATR has demonstrated it's pretty comfortable with ideological heterodoxy as long as Republicans benefit.) The young folk in the party seem more Palinish. The neocons are old too, but they seem to have managed to reproduce (e.g. the Podhoretzes.)

These are just off-the-cuff observations based on reading The Weekly Standard vs. The American Conservative and talking to people in finance. I'd welcome other people's opinions.

Except that there are three parties; two of them have a coalition together. Australian "third parties" have come closer to getting anything than any US third party I can think of.

Only because of the use of Proportional Representation in the Senate. It's effectively impossible to get a non-Liberal-Labor majority in the House.

Because of Prop. Rep., Third parties can have the balance of power. This isn't because they actually have any support, but just because of the idiosyncracies of a rather silly voting system.

This is a horrible example, but the Republican Party did a wonderful job of playing up John Kerry's "bandwagon" approach and I have a feeling that any radical change on the part of the Republican Party would be similarly sneered at.

This wonderful American public is not stupid. Ignorant of international affairs, yes, but not dumb.

There's also the fact that a Far Left Republican party is completely insane, but that's for the psychologists to decide.

Mmm. A system designed to ensure domination by two parties, that effectively elects a dictatorship, and which EXPLICITELY gives the Parliament the right to restrict the franchise?

Not for me, thanks, for all that I like living here.

That is a quite wrong assessment of the Australian political system on local, state and federal levels. In my states last election, it was a third party who decided who would get to be the premier for the next few years. Also, on a federal level, six independents hold the balance of power in the senate.

If I understand the OP's argument, he seems to be stating that even vaguely consistent ideology between elections should be considered secondary to the pursuit of power.

Re-wording, it would be acceptable for a party to complete a 180 degree change of tack on every single substantive issue so long as it brought a return to power closer.

Presumably it's also therefore acceptable to cynically jettison all of the people who've previously voted for you so long as you attract the new voters who'll get you elected.

It's also good for punishing those failures who call themselves your supporters. You didn't get us elected, and now you get nothing.

That is a quite wrong assessment of the Australian political system on local, state and federal levels. In my states last election, it was a third party who decided who would get to be the premier for the next few years. Also, on a federal level, six independents hold the balance of power in the senate.

Dude, I LIVE in W.A.

I also know that the various state systems tend to resolve the problems of the Federal system.

Nevertheless: 35% of the population always vote Labor. 35% always vote Liberal. With that sort of advantage, multiplied by the bonus of the Preferential voting system, those two parties will dominate the federal political system until or unless one of them implodes or splits.

Except that there are three parties; two of them have a coalition together. Australian "third parties" have come closer to getting anything than any US third party I can think of.

Incorrect. There are three parties in the House of Representatives: Labor, Liberals, and Nationals. The latter two almost invariably form a coalition when the right of centre parties are in government, and some would argue they're better off merging.

There are five parties in the Australian Senate: Labor, Liberals, Greens, Nationals, and Family First (and one independent).

While Australian third parties can have an impact in the Senate, it's virtually impossible for third parties to get elected to the House, which is essentially a two party duopoly given the links between the Liberals and Nats.

The difference is that the House uses a single candidate preference redistribution system for seats where the leading candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, but the Senate uses a multi-candidate single transferable vote system.

The cancer at the core of the Australian electoral system is the 'above the line' voting system. An Australian Senate ballot can have some 60 names below the line, which a voter has to place in numerical order without making a single mistake in order to express his or her own preference. Since most Australian voters are too lazy to do this, most tick a single party box above the line, at which point the party, not the voter, decides how the preferences are subsequently distributed.

In the 2004 Federal Election, this above the line party-decided redistribution led to Steven Fielding of the Family First Party getting elected over David Risstrom of the Green Party even though Fielding received only 1.88% of the vote to Risstrom's 8.80%. In other words, Fielding received more than 200,000 fewer primary votes than Risstrom, but was still elected over him simply because other political parties miscalculated their preference flows.

So there's arguably a significant flaw at the heart of the Australian electoral system.


Nor is the third party situation stable, as the recent demise of the Australian Democrats - from balance of power to wipeout in three easy elections - so graphically proves.

The problem with the Pubbies is their inability to follow up on the idea of small government. Somehow they forget that they're elected to REDUCE spending.

It's also good for punishing those failures who call themselves your supporters. You didn't get us elected, and now you get nothing.

That's not how it works.... if the Republicans, by some weird miracle, DID reposition as far left... the previously-Republican voters would vote for someone closer to their ideology - which would either be the Democrats, or some third party... or even a faction of the former Republican Party that schismed off from the main party.

A sudden huge jump to the left would dissolve the party, it wouldn't destroy the base.

The problem with the Pubbies is their inability to follow up on the idea of small government. Somehow they forget that they're elected to REDUCE spending.

I like how FO tries to say they ought to switch to a leftist party, they already haven't been delivering what they're supposed to. If the repubs went left anymore than they already have, there would be a new party to fill that gap where about half of Americans go...

The problem with the Pubbies is their inability to follow up on the idea of small government. Somehow they forget that they're elected to REDUCE spending.

A big part of that problem is that the public lets them get away with it. For some reason we tend not to see defense spending as actual "spending". The B-1 somehow pays for itself. There's less of a blind spot with entitlements -- when Grandma gets checks in the mail from the government, it's hard not to realize that that's government spending. The Boomers have more or less grown up with the entitlement programs, so it's near-impossible to undo them. They fully realize that shutting those down will mean they have to support Grandma, plus their lousy kids whom they avoided having in the first place will have to support them.

(Which is why this "spending freeze" that McCain's pitching, that somehow doesn't include defense, entitlements, or "vital programs" such as worker retraining is irritatingly meaningless. What meaningful spending is McCain going to freeze? Debt interest payments? It's a nice way of getting rid of those departments that Republicans hate, like the EPA, without actually solving any fiscal issues. Grrrr!)

This isn't to say that there aren't a lot of Republicans interested in reducing spending, it's that they don't have a loud enough voice in their own party. Lots of Republicans don't actually get elected to cut taxes and spending, they get elected to keep the pork rolling in, or to keep the country out of the hands of "the abortion industry", so not surprisingly they don't have an interest in giving their constituents bad news.

Dude, I LIVE in W.A.

I also know that the various state systems tend to resolve the problems of the Federal system.

Nevertheless: 35% of the population always vote Labor. 35% always vote Liberal. With that sort of advantage, multiplied by the bonus of the Preferential voting system, those two parties will dominate the federal political system until or unless one of them implodes or splits.

As it stands, there is only one major political party in Australia - Labor. The Liberals have rarely been strong enough to fledge a government on their own. Hence the Liberal/National coalition (meaning that regional Australia does get represented, albiet, by the wrong party).

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state. How can the Republican Party rebuild itself? Or should it's members just disband it and form a new party?

Personally, I think that if there are any Republicans brave enough to stay on, they should overthrow the Republican leadership and reboot the party as either a centre-right or far left party.

First and foremost, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat... Just getting that out there before people just assume I'm a Republican.

What sort of evidence to you bring forth to suggest that the GOP is, as you say, "fucked?" The polls certainly do not reflect that as Obama and McCain are relatively close. Even if Obama wins, it won't be by a landslide majority and the GOP is certainly not down and out.

There has only been one time in American history where America was effectively a one party nation and that's during the Era of Good Feelings. The Era of Good Feelings was a time in American history which started during the Jefferson administration and ended during the Jackson administration. During that time, the Federalists were effectively shattered by internal disputes and the only real party was the Democratic-Republicans (formerly Anti-Federalists and later, the Democrats). It wasn't until Jackson's administration that the Federalists managed to piece themselves back together as the Whigs and start winning some elections before their decline and the rise of the GOP.

That being said, circumstances are way too different now a-days for there to be another Era of Good Feelings (I assure you, the feelings wouldn't be good either if did happen). Besides, it's not a good thing for there to be one party, either... Even if you agree with that party. One party = tyranny by majority, which is a very bad thing. I personally like one party to control Congress and the other to have the White House, that way it creates gridlock and doesn't allow for either party to have too much control.

In my opinion, your argument does not have any sort of merit.. In fact, I'd hardly call it an argument, it sounds like nonsense coming from an overly passionate zealot who is way too psyched about the prospect of Obama winning.

As it stands, there is only one major political party in Australia - Labor. The Liberals have rarely been strong enough to fledge a government on their own. Hence the Liberal/National coalition (meaning that regional Australia does get represented, albiet, by the wrong party).

Unfortunately, despite some nice distancing at the state level (Go the WA Nats!) the Federal National Party more often seems to be just the "Country division" of the Libs.

Unfortunately, they seem to have little influence there.

What sort of evidence to you bring forth to suggest that the GOP is, as you say, "fucked?" The polls certainly do not reflect that as Obama and McCain are relatively close. Even if Obama wins, it won't be by a landslide majority and the GOP is certainly not down and out.

I think it could be said that had the Dems fielded a candidate exactly like Obama in every way, except he was a white "full-blooded" American, the Reps would be fucked - completely. But racism is what is keeping Obama from getting more than a 15% lead in the gallup polls.

Unfortunately, despite some nice distancing at the state level (Go the WA Nats!) the Federal National Party more often seems to be just the "Country division" of the Libs.

Unfortunately, they seem to have little influence there.

That is somewhat depressing. The Nats are supposed to represent rural Australians. Whether it be right wing or left wing politics, they are supposed to represent what is best for rural Australia. However, they are painfully partisan, and would side with the Libs over Labor without consideration of what would be better for their constituency (I misspelled that word).

That's not how it works.... if the Republicans, by some weird miracle, DID reposition as far left... the previously-Republican voters would vote for someone closer to their ideology - which would either be the Democrats, or some third party... or even a faction of the former Republican Party that schismed off from the main party.

Yes, but then all the Democrats would vote for the new Republican party, as would the Independents. Put it together.

It's also good for punishing those failures who call themselves your supporters. You didn't get us elected, and now you get nothing.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to punish your friends, because they are fewer than your opponents.

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state. How can the Republican Party rebuild itself? Or should it's members just disband it and form a new party?

Personally, I think that if there are any Republicans brave enough to stay on, they should overthrow the Republican leadership and reboot the party as either a centre-right or far left party.
Nope. For starters, the conservative base is still there - evangelicals, working class fiscal conservatives, suburban voters; and in the next election warch them vote for McCain. The last polls I saw put McCain on 41 and Obama on 51, That's not the kind of wipeout that, say, the Federalists saw during the Era of Good Feelings, when the USA had kind of one party rule, albeit with party and regional groupings replacing parties.

Even if the Democrats were to become the 'party of natural government' as it were over the next decade or so, you have to remember that firstly, the USA is a federal state and the Republicans will continue to do well in state and county governments in every state, bar a couple and secondly, there are conservative Democratic factions that would replace Republicans naturally and keep conservative issues going.

I think it could be said that had the Dems fielded a candidate exactly like Obama in every way, except he was a white "full-blooded" American, the Reps would be fucked - completely. But racism is what is keeping Obama from getting more than a 15% lead in the gallup polls.

Hardly. Racism is not stopping Obama, as one of the main issues that the Democratic party has been touting recently is AFFIRMITIVE ACTION! Any racists that didn't leave when the Democratic party started touting that one around are EXTREMLY rare.

Personally, I think that if there are any Republicans brave enough to stay on, they should overthrow the Republican leadership and reboot the party as either a centre-right or far left party.
A far-left party would probably not be in favour of having a singular head of state, preferring to put power in the hands of a collective; in which case, it would cease to be a "republican" party.

If you're suggesting replacing the Republican party by a far-left party, then go right ahead. Heck, if they want to, you can even have all the old Republican guard join it. But it would cease to be the, or even a, Republican party.

Yes, but then all the Democrats would vote for the new Republican party, as would the Independents. Put it together.

Don't be ridiculous.

How do you think there is aclose race between Democrats and Republicans, on average? Simply put - there are a lot more in-betweeners than there are on either fringe.

There are a lot of people near the centre of American politics. Some of them call themselves centrists, some moderates, some embrace the whole thing and call themselves Independents - and they COULD end up voting for the right candidate out of ANY party, as evidenced in the big swing toward Reagan.

Some of the more leftwing Democrats would jump to a new far left option. Most probably wouldn't. Some Independents would jump... most wouldn't.

If you don't have any clue what you're talking about, there's no actual pressure for you to keep 'removing all doubt'.

A far-left party would probably not be in favour of having a singular head of state, preferring to put power in the hands of a collective; in which case, it would cease to be a "republican" party.

If you're suggesting replacing the Republican party by a far-left party, then go right ahead. Heck, if they want to, you can even have all the old Republican guard join it. But it would cease to be the, or even a, Republican party.

There are plenty of far-left parties that advocate single heads of state.

Hardly. Racism is not stopping Obama, as one of the main issues that the Democratic party has been touting recently is AFFIRMITIVE ACTION! Any racists that didn't leave when the Democratic party started touting that one around are EXTREMLY rare.

How can you support your claim?

I wish I believed you - but I just don't see any evidence to believe that racism is not playing ANY part in these elections.

How can you support your claim?

I wish I believed you - but I just don't see any evidence to believe that racism is not playing ANY part in these elections.

I have to agree. The fact that Obama has gotten as far as he has, and even moreso should he win, is a big round of applause for America - that less than fifty years after the end of segregation a Black man can do this is amazing.

But that's not the same as saying racism isn't having it's say. Some Dems will be voting Rep this year because of it. Some people will stay home.

It's not nice, but reality rarely is.

How can you support your claim?

I wish I believed you - but I just don't see any evidence to believe that racism is not playing ANY part in these elections.

I actually read an interesting article in some magazine (I forget which one) that is totally dedicated to the study of racism in America. They actually interviewed several hate groups, such as the KKK and various neo-facist movements in America... Apparently, many of them are voting for Obama in an attempt to "wake-up" the rest of America's white population.

In their strange and twisted minds, they think that having a black president will cause whites to join their local hate groups so that membership can spike again.

In my opinion, their "diabolical plan" loses all its teeth if they tell everyone about it... But we're not exactly talking about America's best and brightest, either.

I actually read an interesting article in some magazine (I forget which one) that is totally dedicated to the study of racism in America. They actually interviewed several hate groups, such as the KKK and various neo-facist movements in America... Apparently, many of them are voting for Obama in an attempt to "wake-up" the rest of America's white population.

In their strange and twisted minds, they think that having a black president will cause whites to join their local hate groups so that membership can spike again.

In my opinion, their "diabolical plan" loses all its teeth if they tell everyone about it.

That makes lots of sense. Give the people Stalin and they'll learn to appreciate Gorbachev.

That makes lots of sense. Give the people Stalin and they'll learn to appreciate Gorbachev.

Unfortunately, Obama is more like giving the Khruschev...still I suppose the die-hard racists need to hang onto some hope.

Is having one-party rule really so bad?
It worked for Mexico and Japan for a long time...

How can you support your claim?

I wish I believed you - but I just don't see any evidence to believe that racism is not playing ANY part in these elections.

I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that Racists that WOULD'VE voted for the democratic party, had they had a white man running for president, wouldn't be enough to give Obama an edge. It would've been a relatively small gain for the Democratic party.

Is having one-party rule really so bad?
It worked for Mexico and Japan for a long time...

Riiiiight. Mexico's bankrupt and Japan can't keep PM's...

That makes lots of sense. Give the people Stalin and they'll learn to appreciate Gorbachev.

I suppose if Obama wins, we'll see how fickle people really are. Since I'm almost entirely Jewish in ethnicity, I'd rather not see the Klan and the Neo-Nazi movements have another record high in membership rates.

well gee this is a convoluted thread...couple thoughts
1. neither parties gonna do anything major IMHO. The republicans controlled congress, and the white house for 2 years...and got roughly squat of the promises they had promised done. So all the rights were angry with them and didn't vote in 06, or voted left ( weasel logic but whatev)
so now they elect a compromiser guy...and all he is gonna do is alienate more of the far right-evangelical base, but perhaps gain a few independents...and than they get sarah palin...who has a whole lot of baggage, but is doing a little good I think.

in the end obamas gonna win...but I don't see why it will be so bad for them...they will probably realize, oops where supposed to be the right party, and take congress in 10, possibly ;) IDK it all depends, but again I think it doesn't matter...neither parties gonna do anything to tick people off (except for the bailout...if only McCain had voted against it...but of course as was told us by the Honorable Rep. Latham he voted for it so he could take out some stuff...like, 20 billion dollars for ACORN (grr...)
that was random./..

I have to agree. The fact that Obama has gotten as far as he has, and even moreso should he win, is a big round of applause for America - that less than fifty years after the end of segregation a Black man can do this is amazing.

But that's not the same as saying racism isn't having it's say. Some Dems will be voting Rep this year because of it. Some people will stay home.

It's not nice, but reality rarely is.

The fact that Obama 'has gotten as far as he has' doesnt necessarily translate. If people DO decide to vote according to racism, Obama could be thirty percent up on November 3rd, and still lose the election. It ain't over till it's over.

And it took running against one of the worst governments in American history to allow conditions where a black politician COULD run. Hell, conditions are bad enough that even the Republicans ran a non-conventional candidate, even if she did turn out to be comic relief. This is an election of zeitgeist, not racial awareness, or America coming to terms with its demons.

I actually read an interesting article in some magazine (I forget which one) that is totally dedicated to the study of racism in America. They actually interviewed several hate groups, such as the KKK and various neo-facist movements in America... Apparently, many of them are voting for Obama in an attempt to "wake-up" the rest of America's white population.

In their strange and twisted minds, they think that having a black president will cause whites to join their local hate groups so that membership can spike again.

In my opinion, their "diabolical plan" loses all its teeth if they tell everyone about it... But we're not exactly talking about America's best and brightest, either.

Interesting, but I don't know how much store I would set in it. Racism has been deliberately muted this year - pretty much no one in the media reported the large turnout of Klansmen at the first Presidential Debate.

That doesn't mean racism hasn't happened... it's just not being talked about.

That makes lots of sense. Give the people Stalin and they'll learn to appreciate Gorbachev.

Yes, because Obama is EXACTLY like the Georgian statist despot...

:rolleyes:

It's easier to catch up and overtake than it is to maintain a lead.

I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that Racists that WOULD'VE voted for the democratic party, had they had a white man running for president, wouldn't be enough to give Obama an edge. It would've been a relatively small gain for the Democratic party.

Based on what?

You keep saying it, but not supporting it.

Around here, I know a lot of people that are normally Republicans, that were pissed at what Bush has done. Some of them even talked about crossing party lines.

The problem is - a lot of people around here are racist, sexist redneck assholes - and the minute it became clear a vote for Democrats would have supported either a woman, or even worse - a black - they threw support behind the GOP... no matter WHO the candidate was going to be.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard comments like "You can't let one of 'them' get in the Whitehouse, or we'll never get them' out".

If Obama had been a white dude, we'd be talking about Georgia as a serious tossup already.

It's easier to catch up and overtake than it is to maintain a lead.

More so in a physical race. I would venture to say a political race operates differently.

I would like to point out that the racism arguments are discounting the votes gained by Obama because he;s black. There are several people who will vote for him (who otherwise wouldn't vote) because the idea of electing the first black president is inspiring.

More so in a physical race. I would venture to say a political race operates differently.

Not in the long term.

I would like to point out that the racism arguments are discounting the votes gained by Obama because he;s black. There are several people who will vote for him (who otherwise wouldn't vote) because the idea of electing the first black president is inspiring.

Are there?

Where's the evidence? There's established precedence for the claims that - not only will Obama's race hurt him, but it won't be apparent in lead-in polls.

How are you going to statistically account for a pro-black vote? How will you support it?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard comments like "You can't let one of 'them' get in the Whitehouse, or we'll never get them' out".

Well it's true, innit?

I would like to point out that the racism arguments are discounting the votes gained by Obama because he;s black. There are several people who will vote for him (who otherwise wouldn't vote) because the idea of electing the first black president is inspiring.

Because if race isn't a good basis for selecting the man who could destroy the world without any resistance whatsoever, I don't know what is.

On the OP (I can't be arsed to read through the whole thread to see what the topic has now digressed onto). Firstly, the Republicans haven't lost the election yet. Secondly, unless something goes badly wrong for them, it will not be a crushing defeat in which they lose a huge number of their traditionally safe states. Thirdly, the logic of the electoral system and familiarity and identification with the existing parties makes it very unlikely that a new party will pose any substantial threat to the Republicans as one of the two main parties. So, when people get dissatisfied with the Democrats (people always get fed up of a party if it is in control for a certain amount of time), the Republicans will be back (if indeed they lose this election!). This is nothing more than the end of a strong period for the Republicans and a weak one for the Democrats. If the Republicans are on the slide now, it will switch back around eventually after a period of, yes, soul-searching and rethinking, until they're back in the ascendancy, very likely within 6-8 years at the longest.

EDIT: By the way, I am not a supporter of the Republicans. I just think this is the most likely outcome

Well, it's what I'd do if I was in charge. If they didn't want what the Republicans are offering this time, or last time, or the three times before that, why would they want it next time? Might as well scrap the whole thing and start again.

Never mind the rest of us--doesn't this ever get boring for you?

What's odd is that once party in power loses, it seems to go into denial about why it lost and actually accentuates the points on which it lost.

I suspect the Republicans will be particularly nasty over the next 4 years, alienating the centre even more, and will then win in either '16 or '20 depending on how long it takes them to gain some sense back.

Well it's true, innit?


Just going to spam vacuous nonsense, or actually got any serious points to make?

If the 'once one get's in, you'll never get them out' argument was worth it's weight in paper, the Whitehouse would be the Pope's second home by now, Presidents would be picked based on how repulsively ugly they were, and there'd be Mormons in all the highest offices.

Where's the evidence? There's established precedence for the claims that - not only will Obama's race hurt him, but it won't be apparent in lead-in polls.

How are you going to statistically account for a pro-black vote? How will you support it?

Quite frankly, I can't. Its near an impossible metric to measure. However, we do know that he was able to take down the Clinton juggernaut when no one else stood a chance. Was that just cause he was new? Or did the physical representation of change through his African-American appearance play into that.

Even disregarding the extended primary season, there were record votes in the primaries for the Democrats, many of the victories given to him. Record turnout for black voters in the primaries, where he won 9/10 of the votes. Record youth turnout in the primaries, where he won the majority there as well.

I would venture to say that against an identical white man, he would be receiving fewer votes than he would have now (much as hate the idea that people voted for or against someone based on such a characteristic)

Because if race isn't a good basis for selecting the man who could destroy the world without any resistance whatsoever, I don't know what is

I didn't say I agreed with it; I just said it was a factor that some people take into account.

Just going to spam vacuous nonsense, or actually got any serious points to make?

If the 'once one get's in, you'll never get them out' argument was worth it's weight in paper, the Whitehouse would be the Pope's second home by now, Presidents would be picked based on how repulsively ugly they were, and there'd be Mormons in all the highest offices.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

Colin Powell 2012!

Quite frankly, I can't. Its near an impossible metric to measure. However, we do know that he was able to take down the Clinton juggernaut when no one else stood a chance. Was that just cause he was new? Or did the physical representation of change through his African-American appearance play into that.

Even disregarding the extended primary season, there were record votes in the primaries for the Democrats, many of the victories given to him. Record turnout for black voters in the primaries, where he won 9/10 of the votes. Record youth turnout in the primaries, where he won the majority there as well.

I would venture to say that against an identical white man, he would be receiving fewer votes than he would have now (much as hate the idea that people voted for or against someone based on such a characteristic)


Primaries aren't the election. But, that aside, a lot of what killed Clinton was the same thing that made her a frontrunner to start - name recognition.

A lot of people voted for Obama because Clinton would have been such an easy target for the GOP spin machine. There were record votes in the primaries because the bases are unusually motivated this season - a lot of people consider it ESSENTIAL to overthrow the Bush regime.

I like the idea that pro-black voters are somehow cancelling the votes of anti-black voters... but I just don't see any reason to accept it. When it gets to the election, and no one is accountable, primaries be damned.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

Wow... you do write rubbish.

Black candidates would ALWAYS win based on NOVELTY?

Considering your absolute lack of any real input, anything worthwhile to say, or any apparent clue about American politics, I'll 'mark your words' to the exact extent of value which they deserve.

Which would simply mean that - if this were a debate on paper - I'd wipe my ass on them.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

Yes. Obama is leading solely because he is black. Hence why all his answers to the media are, "Is it because I'm black?"

Get some new material, troll, or begone.

Geolana:However, we do know that he was able to take down the Clinton juggernaut when no one else stood a chance. Was that just cause he was new? Or did the physical representation of change through his African-American appearance play into that.
Either way, change was represented by the candidate here--Obama by race and Clinton by gender. I think the charisma and message of Obama had more to do with his victory than his race. If this was strictly driven by the simplicity of "Blacks vote black and Females vote female" then Clinton should have won since the population has a higher percentage of females vs males than blacks vs whites. Race certainly played a part in that we saw a much higher turnout of black and minority voters, and I have no doubt that the Dems will lose some votes due to an unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, but I think that this is more of a side issue than a driving force.

As to the OP--WTF are you smoking?
1) The Repubs are FAR from destroyed--they may not have the extra 1% to gain the majority in this race (due to a wide range of reasons, including the current administration's push towards a theocracy that abandons the party's core traditions of small gov't and fiscal responsibility) but by all accounts this race is going to be another extremely close one. This means that approximately HALF of the population still endorses the right-leaning message of the party and I would hardly qualify that as "fucked".
By your reasoning (and I use that term very loosely here) after the extremely close losses the Dems underwent in the last two elections, they should have changed their Party's platform to some form of theocratic fascism--to draw the voters that got Bush into office. The reality is that extreme right and left parties currently exist and do draw influence on local levels, however the success of both Dem and Rep parties is that they tend towards just left or right of centrist. Since the majority of the population falls into this range, it allows for a close battle and the extremists either sit it out or go to the politically closest sides.

2) As far as changing your party's ideology to "punish" your supporters--that's ridiculous for a few reasons. In such close races, it is not the fault of the 47-49% of the population that voted for you...it is the fault of your platform or of your candidate's personality that did not get you that extra 1-4% of the moderate "swing" voters. Tweaking the message of your party might be in order, but not a radical revision of your core beliefs. If this was a landslide defeat (>30% margin) I might be inclined to agree with you that a more radical change was in order, however this is hardly the case and any argument otherwise is either from naivety or a profound lack of understanding.

Also, the 47-49% that vote for the Rep candidate are voting their support for your stand on the issues--they are not voting for the name of your party. I could rename the American Communist Party to the Republican Party, but that won't make those right-leaning voters suddenly follow my party into the elections. Instead, either the voters will fragment into conservative splinter groups (thereby guaranteeing the next election to the Dems and a left-center platform with a large draw) or a new center-right party will form under a different name and the game will go on.

It took the Democrats 12 years. Have some patience - the basic premises of individual autonomy,

What does individual autonomy have to do with the modern Republican party?

Leaders aren't elected by popular vote in the US.

Yeah that would be an example of actual democracy.

Being left worked for the Democrats, thus, the Republicans can win if they're even more left. It makes sense to me.

And only to you.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

You're not terribly knowledgeable on the meaning of the word "novelty". By definition, there will never again be a black candidate capable of campaigning on the novelty of being a black candidate.

So I'm to take it Ferrous Oxide really believes that the USSR was a better place than the USA to live in?

Even though he admits (claims) some of his family were killed there?

I find that impossible to believe. He is either lying about the first, or the second claim.

Here's what the Republican Party needs:

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/BarryGoldwaterTime.jpg

What does individual autonomy have to do with the modern Republican party?

Loads. Don't imagine that the Religious Right are everything in the GOP - they're dominant right now, but if they lose this election thir stock drops big time.

A lot of the Republicans have voted against things Bush is strongly for - and a lot of them see small government and individual autonomy as things to fight for.

Loads. Don't imagine that the Religious Right are everything in the GOP - they're dominant right now, but if they lose this election thir stock drops big time.

A lot of the Republicans have voted against things Bush is strongly for - and a lot of them see small government and individual autonomy as things to fight for.

Got any examples of Republicans voting FOR personal autonomy lately?

Here's what the Republican Party needs:

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/BarryGoldwaterTime.jpg

Yeah, they seriously do.

Got any examples of Republicans voting FOR personal autonomy lately?

Oh, they've helped plenty of persons out in terms of autonomy.

After all, big corporations are legal persons, are they not?

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state.

This is not even close to true.


Your ignorance of American politics continues to amaze me.

No flaws in the Electoral College system. It does it's job well - ensures that the populous states don't have all the say in electing the President.


In other words, it means that the heartland states (which are generally both less populous and rather more inclined to vote republican) have a great deal of power to pick the president. In fact, the amount of raw electoral clout they wield is completely out of proportion to their population.

Now, yes, I know that is the whole point.

But am I completely alone in thinking that this system is extremely biased and very unfair?

Maybe the president should be picked by the popular vote. It would certainly be more democratic, and a lot fairer for the majority of the population.


But anyway, much as I hate to say it, I think Ferrous Oxide is right, although only in one respect. Which is that the general public didn't want the republicans in power in 2000, nor in 2004, and probably don't want them now.
I don't have time or space here to list all the reasons why, but I will say this: The election was stolen in Florida in 2000, and this simply set the scene. Having got away with it, the same trick was pulled in nearly every state with a significant black / hispanic / other immigrant population in 2004.

If you want proof of the former, read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", and for the latter, "Armed Madhouse", both by Greg Palast.
He is a source you can trust unequivocally. If you ever want proof of that, consider that he's the only American reporter who ever gets his pieces aired on the BBC's "Newsnight" program in the UK.

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

Yeah, we all saw how Alan Keyes totally OWNED the republican primaries in 2000...

In other words, it means that the heartland states (which are generally both less populous and rather more inclined to vote republican) have a great deal of power to pick the president. In fact, the amount of raw electoral clout they wield is completely out of proportion to their population.

Now, yes, I know that is the whole point.

But am I completely alone in thinking that this system is extremely biased and very unfair?

Maybe the president should be picked by the popular vote. It would certainly be more democratic, and a lot fairer for the majority of the population.


No, you're not alone. It would be fairer, and more democratic, but the worry is that it is somehow unfair to those who live in rural economies.

Of course - that argument is horseshit... because a person is a person is a person. It doesn't matter WHERE you come from, you should have one vote, not a proportion of a vote - and that's the unfortunate situation that the electoral vote system creates.

what the republican party needs to oust the Neo-cons in the party. They totally undermine what the republican party once stood for and took a very FDR/Truman Direction.

No, you're not alone. It would be fairer, and more democratic, but the worry is that it is somehow unfair to those who live in rural economies.

Of course - that argument is horseshit... because a person is a person is a person. It doesn't matter WHERE you come from, you should have one vote, not a proportion of a vote - and that's the unfortunate situation that the electoral vote system creates.

I don't agree. (Shocking, I know:D) A person is a person, but different cultures breed different needs.

A person in the big trade cities, like New York, San Francisco or Chicago, has differing requirements from government than someone in a "working class" city like Detroit, different again from a resort area like Miami or Vegas, and different again from primarily rural areas.

If the President was elected on pure popular vote, the situation would not reverse - it would JUMP the other way. The "heartland states" you disparage would not have influence equal to their population in a Presidential election - they would have NO INFLUENCE AT ALL. EVERY Presidential hopeful would campaign the east coast, California and Texas - the rest of the country can go hang, their needs? Who freaking cares. If you win Texas, Cal and New York, nothing else matters.

Besides which, there is ALREADY a mechanism for representing the populace on a Federal level - the House of Representatives. The Electoral College force the President to consider the need to be the representative of ALL Americans, not just the valuable states.

"One Vote, One Value" is a great slogan. It's not so great when it basically means you and yours have been disenfranchised.

I don't agree. (Shocking, I know:D) A person is a person, but different cultures breed different needs.

A person in the big trade cities, like New York, San Francisco or Chicago, has differing requirements from government than someone in a "working class" city like Detroit, different again from a resort area like Miami or Vegas, and different again from primarily rural areas.

If the President was elected on pure popular vote, the situation would not reverse - it would JUMP the other way. The "heartland states" you disparage would not have influence equal to their population in a Presidential election - they would have NO INFLUENCE AT ALL. EVERY Presidential hopeful would campaign the east coast, California and Texas - the rest of the country can go hang, their needs? Who freaking cares. If you win Texas, Cal and New York, nothing else matters.

Besides which, there is ALREADY a mechanism for representing the populace on a Federal level - the House of Representatives. The Electoral College force the President to consider the need to be the representative of ALL Americans, not just the valuable states.

"One Vote, One Value" is a great slogan. It's not so great when it basically means you and yours have been disenfranchised.

I agree.

Which makes me wonder why it's okay to do it to people in cities.

And that's the thing - you look at how the electoral votes pan out for someone in a populous city... and pre-civil war blacks were better off with their one-third of a vote.

Would it mean that the rural states would be passed over (I don't remember 'disparaging' the heartland...?) in favour of city states on the coasts... maybe. So?

How is that unfair - if HALF of your population lives in two main population centres, why should they be punished for that fact?

Yeah, they seriously do.
Glad you agree....now, to convince others!

I agree.

Which makes me wonder why it's okay to do it to people in cities.

And that's the thing - you look at how the electoral votes pan out for someone in a populous city... and pre-civil war blacks were better off with their one-third of a vote.

Would it mean that the rural states would be passed over (I don't remember 'disparaging' the heartland...?) in favour of city states on the coasts... maybe. So?

How is that unfair - if HALF of your population lives in two main population centres, why should they be punished for that fact?

They aren't. The more populous states STILL get more votes than the less populous ones under the college.

What they DON'T get is such a massively overwhelming majority that the smaller statesbecome irrelevancies. Consider this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Electoral_College_Map.PNG

As you can see, California can still basically outvote the entire midwest. But the number of votes in say, Nevada (5) is still enough for a Presidential hopeful to go to Nevada, campaign in Nevada, and consider Nevada's needs when he's crafting his policies.

Without the College? Nevada might as well not exist. Everyone in the state can be outvoted by Brooklyn. Their needs will not be considered, and their votes will mean nothing.

("Disparaging" ws probably the wrong word. Eh, I was on a roll :fluffle:)

They aren't. The more populous states STILL get more votes than the less populous ones under the college.


But the proportionality favours the less populated states. Wyoming has the population of a medium-sized CITY, and yet it garners 3 votes on the future president.


What they DON'T get is such a massively overwhelming majority that the smaller statesbecome irrelevancies. Consider this:

Without the College? Nevada might as well not exist. Everyone in the state can be outvoted by Brooklyn. Their needs will not be considered, and their votes will mean nothing.


Which would be... bad?

What am I missing? Seriously... so, Nevada is outweighed by the places where people actually live... and? Fuck Nevada! Do I look like I care?

I don't see any reason why arbitrary lines of territory should be MORE important than each person having equal say.

I agree.

Which makes me wonder why it's okay to do it to people in cities.

And that's the thing - you look at how the electoral votes pan out for someone in a populous city... and pre-civil war blacks were better off with their one-third of a vote.

Three-fifths, and a representative isn't really a vote, but your point stands.

Well, I might stand corrected (slightly).

Proportional representation is of course the fairest way to organise a democracy. But (and this is a very big BUT) the proportions have to be correct and fair.

I think it's fair to say that the proportions set out in the Electoral College system are neither correct or fair. The idea is a good one (possibly) but the implementation has been badly done. The sheer volume of complaints and protests against the system is more than enough evidence for that.

But it might be a tad irrelevant anyway. Yes, people in rural states have very different needs to those in massive cities. But local government (by that I mean individual state governments) exists to cater for such differences. There is only so much that the federal government can do with broad policies.

Having said that, there is one major piece of legislation which disproportionantely favours rural / heartland states - the farm bill. It really is absolutely grotesque, and gets worse with every iteration.

If you consider federal spending versus taxation, the heartland states receive on average $1.50 in spending for every $1 they pay in tax. The proportions for coastal states are nearly reversed - $0.70 in spending for every $1 tax.
I'm not suggesting eliminating the farm bill - anyone who proposes that will end up as electoral roadkill. But trimming it down to a fairer size would be nice.

What does individual autonomy have to do with the modern Republican party?
If you had continued to read my post, you would have noticed that I included the other, currently more dominant, bases of the Republican party - and that I was talking about voter sentiment, rather than the party's own current leaning.

I agree.

Which makes me wonder why it's okay to do it to people in cities.

And that's the thing - you look at how the electoral votes pan out for someone in a populous city... and pre-civil war blacks were better off with their one-third of a vote.

Would it mean that the rural states would be passed over (I don't remember 'disparaging' the heartland...?) in favour of city states on the coasts... maybe. So?

How is that unfair - if HALF of your population lives in two main population centres, why should they be punished for that fact?


I disagree.
according to this there are 42 black members in the house. or about 10%(which is close to the population of about 12%)
http://www.centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_members.html

prior to affirmative action redrawing of Congressional districts Congress looked more like the senate which has 1 black senator or 2%.

When they drew districts in squares they tended to leave African Americans divided. or only with on district.

But the proportionality favours the less populated states. Wyoming has the population of a medium-sized CITY, and yet it garners 3 votes on the future president.



Which would be... bad?

What am I missing? Seriously... so, Nevada is outweighed by the places where people actually live... and? Fuck Nevada! Do I look like I care?

I don't see any reason why arbitrary lines of territory should be MORE important than each person having equal say.

I think you're proving my point.

It's easy to say "Fuck Nevada". If you live in California, it's easy to say; heck, it's easy to say "Fuck everybody between here, Illinois and north of Texas". And that's just exactly what EVERY Presidential candidate will do. Because those states have no population comapared to California or Texas.

Darvo-Tran mentioned the Farm Bill. Now, personally, I think that's a piece of legislation that needs a fair bit of reform. But drop the electoral college and you have made the Farm Bill's days numbered - because sooner or later, some President will trade it away as part of some treaty or other. (Trust me on this - the Farm Bill truly snarks off some of the US's closest allies.) Now, the Senate could override that - but if the US as a whole is a big winner from this treaty, they won't.

And all the State and Local Government help in the world isn't going to be able, much less willing, to match the Farm Bill.

The State borders aren't just arbitrary demarcations anymore. Many once were; but now they show differences in culture, in social and political structure and in lifestyle.

The Electoral College benefits those who would, under direct vote, have no voice. To me, that's a lot fairer than "One Vote, Once Value".

I think you're proving my point.

It's easy to say "Fuck Nevada". If you live in California, it's easy to say; heck, it's easy to say "Fuck everybody between here, Illinois and north of Texas". And that's just exactly what EVERY Presidential candidate will do. Because those states have no population comapared to California or Texas.

It also appears easy to say "fuck California" .

Darvo-Tran mentioned the Farm Bill. Now, personally, I think that's a piece of legislation that needs a fair bit of reform. But drop the electoral college and you have made the Farm Bill's days numbered - because sooner or later, some President will trade it away as part of some treaty or other. (Trust me on this - the Farm Bill truly snarks off some of the US's closest allies.) Now, the Senate could override that - but if the US as a whole is a big winner from this treaty, they won't.

And all the State and Local Government help in the world isn't going to be able, much less willing, to match the Farm Bill

This is hardly a bad thing. Ending massive subsidies to corporate interests is generally a good thing. Showing that the way the US electoral system is set up end with disproportionate amount of public subidies is hardly an argument in its favor.


The State borders aren't just arbitrary demarcations anymore. Many once were; but now they show differences in culture, in social and political structure and in lifestyle.

Elaborate on this, please.


The Electoral College benefits those who would, under direct vote, have no voice. To me, that's a lot fairer than "One Vote, Once Value"

And so it lessens the voice of others. Your argument seems more like a call to get rid of the presidential system and set-up proportional representation in the legislature. Thus everyone collectively has a voice in proportion to their percentage of the population.

Yeah, we all saw how Alan Keyes totally OWNED the republican primaries in 2000...

+1
The reality is that Obama might have gotten the initial exposure because of his race, but his support and subsequent success has developed because of his message and charisma. Black voters were not swayed by a Republican candidate (who represented policies that were economically and politically contrary to the desires of the black community) simply because of his race.

Sadly, the selection of Palin as VP has had an effect that has, quite frankly, stunned me. The movement of female Clintonistas to the Palin camp makes absolutely NO sense if you assume that Hillary's supporters followed her because of her platform and then because of her gender. The movement of voters was significant enough that Hillary had (and has) to appeal to her supporters to support Obama vs. McCain/Palin, and the reasoning that the "Clinton for McCain" women give are stunningly appalling (I'm angry that the Dem. Party didn't pick Hillary, Palin is a woman and that's good, Sarah has kids and so do I...). Politically you could hardly get farther from Clinton's viewpoint than Palin, especially on women's issues, and the idea that someone could so readily jump from one side of the spectrum to the other simply because of gender shows a fundamental lack of reason and judgment and almost makes me have to question the validity of women's suffrage after all...:confused:

Yeah, we all saw how Alan Keyes totally OWNED the republican primaries in 2000...

+1
The reality is that Obama might have gotten the initial exposure because of his race, but his support and subsequent success has developed because of his message and charisma. Black voters were not swayed by a Republican candidate (who represented policies that were economically and politically contrary to the desires of the black community) simply because of his race.

Sadly, the selection of Palin as VP has had an effect that has, quite frankly, stunned me. The movement of female Clintonistas to the Palin camp makes absolutely NO sense if you assume that Hillary's supporters followed her because of her platform and then because of her gender. The movement of voters was significant enough that Hillary had (and has) to appeal to her supporters to support Obama vs. McCain/Palin, and the reasoning that the "Clinton for McCain" women give are stunningly appalling (I'm angry that the Dem. Party didn't pick Hillary, Palin is a woman and that's good, Sarah has kids and so do I...). Politically you could hardly get farther from Clinton's viewpoint than Palin, especially on women's issues, and the idea that someone could so readily jump from one side of the spectrum to the other simply because of gender shows a fundamental lack of reason and judgment and almost makes me have to question the validity of women's suffrage after all...:confused:

+1
The reality is that Obama might have gotten the initial exposure because of his race, but his support and subsequent success has developed because of his message and charisma. Black voters were not swayed by a Republican candidate (who represented policies that were economically and politically contrary to the desires of the black community) simply because of his race.

Sadly, the selection of Palin as VP has had an effect that has, quite frankly, stunned me. The movement of female Clintonistas to the Palin camp makes absolutely NO sense if you assume that Hillary's supporters followed her because of her platform and then because of her gender. The movement of voters was significant enough that Hillary had (and has) to appeal to her supporters to support Obama vs. McCain/Palin, and the reasoning that the "Clinton for McCain" women give are stunningly appalling (I'm angry that the Dem. Party didn't pick Hillary, Palin is a woman and that's good, Sarah has kids and so do I...). Politically you could hardly get farther from Clinton's viewpoint than Palin, especially on women's issues, and the idea that someone could so readily jump from one side of the spectrum to the other simply because of gender shows a fundamental lack of reason and judgment and almost makes me have to question the validity of women's suffrage after all...:confused:
I doubt enough women will flock to Mccain just because of Palin.
however Africans Americans (who have a 90% voting for democrats average) could easily throw the election if they had low voter turn out.
Turn out is far more important then support these days.

It's easy to say "Fuck Nevada". If you live in California, it's easy to say; heck, it's easy to say "Fuck everybody between here, Illinois and north of Texas". And that's just exactly what EVERY Presidential candidate will do. Because those states have no population comapared to California or Texas.
Why is this a problem? I doubt most people would reasonably expect a county with a miniscule population to have the same number of visits from candidates and the same say in elections as the largest city. That might have been necessary 200 years ago with poor communication, but with today's mass long distance media, you don't need to visit every (swing) state the same number of times to have the maximum impact.

Besides, there are plenty of Republicans in California and New York and Democrats in Texas who are just as fucked as anyone else at the minute.

It also appears easy to say "fuck California" .

Only if you want to LOSE. It's the single largest state in the college; go to direct elections, and you may well be able to win JUST by taking California.



This is hardly a bad thing. Ending massive subsidies to corporate interests is generally a good thing.

I would suggest you take a close look at what the Farm Bill does before making any further comment. You might learn why a large number of the Agricultural Corps want it dismantled.

Showing that the way the US electoral system is set up end with disproportionate amount of public subidies is hardly an argument in its favor.

As I said, go take a look at the Bill. It isn't what you seem to think.




Elaborate on this, please.

All right, I will elaborate on the completely bleeding obvious.

Lets take two states, Oregon and Washington. Both coastal, same climate by and large, pretty much similar geography.

And culturally, just about as different as you can get.

Washington is insular, conservative, and, outside Seattle, a little backwards in some ways (I am from Washington; I know wherof I speak).

Oregon is progressive and cosmopolitan, has a higher level of urbanization for a smaller population, and said population seems to like to keep itself on the bleeding edge. (A common saying where I grew up: Where California is now, the US will be in five years. Where Oregon is now, California will be in ten years.)

So, what's the difference? It's not climate, or geography. It's not history; both states were part of the "Oregon Territory" way back when.

But the fact is: you have two different states, with two completely different cultures, side by side.

I don't even want to get into differences between say, Nevada and it's neighbour, Utah


And so it lessens the voice of others. Your argument seems more like a call to get rid of the presidential system and set-up proportional representation in the legislature. Thus everyone collectively has a voice in proportion to their percentage of the population.

Oh PLEASE, NO! I have seen the mess proportional representation has made of Italy, I've seen the chaos of it in the Australian Senate. If you want a system guaranteed to prevent you from making decisions, go proportional.

I'd much rather have direct election than proportional. At least a direct election system would actually get a result.

Why is this a problem? I doubt most people would reasonably expect a county with a miniscule population to have the same number of visits from candidates and the same say in elections as the largest city. That might have been necessary 200 years ago with poor communication, but with today's mass long distance media, you don't need to visit every (swing) state the same number of times to have the maximum impact.

Certainly. I don't expect candidates to come out to each state personally - with fifty states, that would hardly be viable.

I just want the candidates to have to consider the impact of their policies on farming communities and mining towns as well as the big cities. I want them to have to craft platforms that respond to ALL Americans, not just Texans and Californians and New Yorkers. I want them to have to remember that people in Iowa are citizens too, not just a source of food for the "important places".

ANd the electoral college ensures that happens.

Besides, there are plenty of Republicans in California and New York and Democrats in Texas who are just as fucked as anyone else at the minute.

Sure. But that's because of the state's choice to go for "all or nothing" victories. They don't have to do that, and it would be better for American democracy if they didn't.

Only if you want to LOSE. It's the single largest state in the college; go to direct elections, and you may well be able to win JUST by taking California.

Huh? California accounts for about 12% of the US population, not nearly enough to win if the US used direct democracy.

After reading the OP and a couple of choice posts by the original poster, I must conclude that this is the stupidest idea in the history of both stupid and ideas.

After reading the OP and a couple of choice posts by the original poster, I must conclude that this is the stupidest idea in the history of both stupid and ideas.

Or maybe it is so insanely intelligent that none of us can wrap our minds around it.

I hate to naysay, but the proclamation of the demise of the Republican Party is likely premature. Heck, in 2004 some people were proclaiming the demise of the Democrats, and look at the current situation.

I think you're proving my point.

It's easy to say "Fuck Nevada". If you live in California, it's easy to say; heck, it's easy to say "Fuck everybody between here, Illinois and north of Texas".


Okay. And since way more people live in California than in Nevada... I don't really see a problem with that.


And that's just exactly what EVERY Presidential candidate will do. Because those states have no population comapared to California or Texas.


Okay. Seems reasonable.


Darvo-Tran mentioned the Farm Bill. Now, personally, I think that's a piece of legislation that needs a fair bit of reform. But drop the electoral college and you have made the Farm Bill's days numbered - because sooner or later, some President will trade it away as part of some treaty or other.


A slippery-slope argument? That's what you've got?


(Trust me on this - the Farm Bill truly snarks off some of the US's closest allies.) Now, the Senate could override that - but if the US as a whole is a big winner from this treaty, they won't.


I don't trust you on this. If the Farm Bill is worth keeping, it will be worth protecting.

But, would it be so bad if they did trade it away at the right price?


And all the State and Local Government help in the world isn't going to be able, much less willing, to match the Farm Bill.


What's your point?


The State borders aren't just arbitrary demarcations anymore. Many once were; but now they show differences in culture, in social and political structure and in lifestyle.


Bullshit. I live in the corner of Georgia, where it meets North and South Carolina - and you know what the difference is? Where you pay your taxes. That's about it. The culture of the crossover is homogenous, although it may be different to that in... say.. Atlanta.

And that's the problem with your 'cultures' argument - it's like the argument for 'black' and 'white' races. The difference IN a state is bigger than the difference between one state and it's neighbour.


The Electoral College benefits those who would, under direct vote, have no voice.


Rubbish. The Electoral College gives unfair advantage to those who, under direct vote, would have equal voice to everyone else.


To me, that's a lot fairer than "One Vote, Once Value".

And I disagree. I believe it's tyranny of the minority. Each legal adult deserves the same representation, not a bonus-point because they choose to live in Bumfuck, Arizona.

Only if you want to LOSE. It's the single largest state in the college; go to direct elections, and you may well be able to win JUST by taking California.

And it has consistently voted Democrat for decades. Republicans don't have to bother with them as long as they win enough swing states.

I would suggest you take a close look at what the Farm Bill does before making any further comment. You might learn why a large number of the Agricultural Corps want it dismantled.



As I said, go take a look at the Bill. It isn't what you seem to think.

I looked it up and I'm not seeing what you are talking about.

All right, I will elaborate on the completely bleeding obvious.

Lets take two states, Oregon and Washington. Both coastal, same climate by and large, pretty much similar geography.

And culturally, just about as different as you can get.

Washington is insular, conservative, and, outside Seattle, a little backwards in some ways (I am from Washington; I know wherof I speak).

Oregon is progressive and cosmopolitan, has a higher level of urbanization for a smaller population, and said population seems to like to keep itself on the bleeding edge. (A common saying where I grew up: Where California is now, the US will be in five years. Where Oregon is now, California will be in ten years.)

So, what's the difference? It's not climate, or geography. It's not history; both states were part of the "Oregon Territory" way back when.

But the fact is: you have two different states, with two completely different cultures, side by side.

I don't even want to get into differences between say, Nevada and it's neighbour, Utah

So I'm to believe that states are homogenous cultural wholes? I doubt it. Illinois has huge differences between the Chicagoland area and the rest of the state. Seattle could probably fit right in with progressive cosmopolitan Oregon. Houston, Texas is much more liberal than the state of Texas itself.

Oh PLEASE, NO! I have seen the mess proportional representation has made of Italy, I've seen the chaos of it in the Australian Senate. If you want a system guaranteed to prevent you from making decisions, go proportional.

I'd much rather have direct election than proportional. At least a direct election system would actually get a result.

How does the PR prevent decisions in Australia? Isn't the lower house the primary legislature? The problems of Italy don't exist in all PR systems and could be mitigated with a mixed PR system.

Let's be honest, they're fucked.

Good.

They're never going to win an election again.

Good.

The US is effectively a one party state.

It's been one for a long, long, long, lone time.

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state.
Lol wut :D

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. That was so totally worth reprinting. :fluffle:
should it's members just disband it and form a new party?If you mean to imply dignity, that'd be all they have left.
Good luck digging the dignity up, though.

Or maybe it is so insanely intelligent that none of us can wrap our minds around it.
There's this "analyze to death" thread that might enjoy your input. :)

I dunno, the party as a whole looks pretty incompetent. It would be easier, and quicker, to just refocus the party as a far left party, no?

Thens hows comes we whups the Democrats's asses?

The problem is - a lot of people around here are racist, sexist redneck assholes - and the minute it became clear a vote for Democrats would have supported either a woman, or even worse - a black - they threw support behind the GOP... no matter WHO the candidate was going to be.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard comments like "You can't let one of 'them' get in the Whitehouse, or we'll never get them' out".

If Obama had been a white dude, we'd be talking about Georgia as a serious tossup already.

I was going to argue this point, until I read through the thread and realized you live in Deliverance country. Actually now that I really think about it, if Obama was white, there'd be a good chance Georgia would be leaning Democrat as there is a trend of Voting Dem in statewide elections. (Zell Miller, Roy Barnes, etc...)

If parties know that black candidates will always win based on the novelty factor, you'll never see another white candidate. Mark my words, the next Republican candidate will be black.

It worled for Michael Steele...oh wait, no it didn't.

Here's what the Republican Party needs:

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/BarryGoldwaterTime.jpg

Agreed. I'd vote for Goldwater.


Bullshit. I live in the corner of Georgia, where it meets North and South Carolina - and you know what the difference is? Where you pay your taxes. That's about it. The culture of the crossover is homogenous, although it may be different to that in... say.. Atlanta.

And that's the problem with your 'cultures' argument - it's like the argument for 'black' and 'white' races. The difference IN a state is bigger than the difference between one state and it's neighbour.

Rubbish. The Electoral College gives unfair advantage to those who, under direct vote, would have equal voice to everyone else.

And I disagree. I believe it's tyranny of the minority. Each legal adult deserves the same representation, not a bonus-point because they choose to live in Bumfuck, Arizona.

Note: I think you seem to be pissed because you know that as long as you live in North Georgia, you can be as liberal as you wan't and your vote won't matter as you'll be drowned out by rednecks from Waycross (apologies if you're from Waycross.)

Let's say the entire country was your state of Georgia. In order to win, all someone would have to do is win Atlanta and could lose the rest of the state, be a decent margin. Now with control of the state, these paople could focus solely on the city and leave places like Toccoa and Commerce without any money. Why? Because their redneck asses don't matter, all that matters is winning Atlanta and keeping the electorate their happy. The Electoral college keeps this from happening on a national scale.

Thens hows comes we whups the Democrats's asses?

Come again?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct15.png

Obama 357 McCain 181

Senate Dem 59 GOP 41

House Dem 247 GOP 186 Ties 2

I'm pleased to see that Republicans will get duly punished for the crime against humanity that the war against Iraq was.

I was going to argue this point, until I read through the thread and realized you live in Deliverance country.


Literally in Deliverance country. A few years back, I lived just north of Tallulah Falls. I literally lived where they filmed that movie.


Let's say the entire country was your state of Georgia. In order to win, all someone would have to do is win Atlanta and could lose the rest of the state, be a decent margin. Now with control of the state, these paople could focus solely on the city and leave places like Toccoa and Commerce without any money.


And, last year I worked in Toccoa... it's a shithole. ANd a couple of years back, I worked in Commerce.


Why? Because their redneck asses don't matter, all that matters is winning Atlanta and keeping the electorate their happy. The Electoral college keeps this from happening on a national scale.

Except, I don't buy that. I think it's an excuse made up to JUSTIFY the electoral college, but I don't accept it's a real reflection.

What it does is twofold - it assumes that peoplea re homogenous... which isn't true, even in big cities... and it assumes that a person who wins an election in the city is going to ignore the rest of the land just because they didn't have to campaign there. Which obviously isn't true.

Looking at the microcosm again, if Atlanta 'ruled' Georgia, and you only had to win the Atlanta vote to own the whole election... Atlanta would still have to maintain the rest of the state. If for no other reason than Atlanta's DRASTIC water shortage.

Except, I don't buy that. I think it's an excuse made up to JUSTIFY the electoral college, but I don't accept it's a real reflection.

What it does is twofold - it assumes that peoplea re homogenous... which isn't true, even in big cities... and it assumes that a person who wins an election in the city is going to ignore the rest of the land just because they didn't have to campaign there. Which obviously isn't true.

Looking at the microcosm again, if Atlanta 'ruled' Georgia, and you only had to win the Atlanta vote to own the whole election... Atlanta would still have to maintain the rest of the state. If for no other reason than Atlanta's DRASTIC water shortage.

I really wish you were right. But in my experience, you simply aren't.

I've been to a number of countries, some good, some functional and some completely whacked, and there's one thing I've seen in pretty much every one - if your area is not important to the reelection of the important politicians, whether they call themselves President, Prime Minister or Grand Wazoo, you get screwed.

Any time there's a conflict between the needs of a "useful" area and "useless" area, the latter loses. Always. And if you don't see the problem with that, don't gabble to me about "fair".

I'm not talking about third-world shitholes, either. I currently live in Western Australia; and W.A. gets screwed over by the Federal Government all the time, because it doesn't have the same population as New South Wales or Victoria. Ecomnomically, W.A. would actually be better off seceding. And W.A. is in a much better position than say, Nebraska or Colorado would be under a direct election system.

People are all up in arms over "One Vote One Value". But frankly, I'm not that enamoured by it. If we effectively disenfranchise a chunk of the country to do it, fair is hardly the word I'd use.

I really wish you were right. But in my experience, you simply aren't.

I've been to a number of countries, some good, some functional and some completely whacked, and there's one thing I've seen in pretty much every one - if your area is not important to the reelection of the important politicians, whether they call themselves President, Prime Minister or Grand Wazoo, you get screwed.

Any time there's a conflict between the needs of a "useful" area and "useless" area, the latter loses. Always. And if you don't see the problem with that, don't gabble to me about "fair".

I'm not talking about third-world shitholes, either. I currently live in Western Australia; and W.A. gets screwed over by the Federal Government all the time, because it doesn't have the same population as New South Wales or Victoria. Ecomnomically, W.A. would actually be better off seceding. And W.A. is in a much better position than say, Nebraska or Colorado would be under a direct election system.

People are all up in arms over "One Vote One Value". But frankly, I'm not that enamoured by it. If we effectively disenfranchise a chunk of the country to do it, fair is hardly the word I'd use.

I've lived in two entirely different nations, and spent some time in one other. The two places I have spent a lot of time are basically microcosm to macrocosm... the UK and the US. What I noticed in the UK is - yes, areas that have low population densities get a pretty short end of the stick when it comes to the amount of attention that they get around election time.. how much input they have into that process, etc. But, even though the bulk of Englands population lives in urban areas, the rural areas have remained somewhat well supported.

Why? If they have such little voice? Simply put - it comes down to two main factors - if you push for attention you get it, and survival. The UK looks after it's farmers, because it needs them.

Why SHOULD 'the farmers' get as pressing a voice in the political process as metropolitan areas? Why are rural voters MORE important than urban?

I don't buy it. Yes - you can argue that x-county, or x-state... is under-represented because it's basically just a couple of houses and a few thousand acres of sand. But then - it SHOULD be under-represented BECAUSE it's just a couple of houses and some fucking sand.

I've lived in two entirely different nations, and spent some time in one other. The two places I have spent a lot of time are basically microcosm to macrocosm... the UK and the US. What I noticed in the UK is - yes, areas that have low population densities get a pretty short end of the stick when it comes to the amount of attention that they get around election time.. how much input they have into that process, etc. But, even though the bulk of Englands population lives in urban areas, the rural areas have remained somewhat well supported.

Why? If they have such little voice? Simply put - it comes down to two main factors - if you push for attention you get it, and survival. The UK looks after it's farmers, because it needs them.

Why SHOULD 'the farmers' get as pressing a voice in the political process as metropolitan areas? Why are rural voters MORE important than urban?

I don't buy it. Yes - you can argue that x-county, or x-state... is under-represented because it's basically just a couple of houses and a few thousand acres of sand. But then - it SHOULD be under-represented BECAUSE it's just a couple of houses and some fucking sand.

I disagree. They should not br under-represented - they should be represented to their value, and direct election won't do that.

Via the college, the populace ststes still have massively more power than those states that are "a couple of houses and some fucking sand." They just don't have total control - and I fail to see why they should.

One further point - in Britain (and most other countries) the electoral divisions are merely administrative. US States are sovereign bodies. Treating them as such is an important part of our system of government.

we've been a one party republican state in america for the past, well 8 years anyway, and except for clinton's four year break, pretty much the past 30. so rebuilding the repulicrats? why? there's libertarians waiting in the wings to replace them, and greens to replace the demicans. i don't think the corporatocracy, which the republcrats blatantly represent, all their holyier then their thou pretensions however much to the contrary, is going to allow that to happen as long as they have anything to say about it. however, all things DO chainge, and sometimes, its a damd good thing that they do.

I disagree. They should not br under-represented - they should be represented to their value, and direct election won't do that.


No, direct election does EXACTLY that - and you seem to think that's bad.


Via the college, the populace ststes still have massively more power than those states that are "a couple of houses and some fucking sand." They just don't have total control - and I fail to see why they should.


Fair enough. Direct representation wouldn't give them total control, it would just give them the same proportion of power that they have in terms of proportion of people.


One further point - in Britain (and most other countries) the electoral divisions are merely administrative. US States are sovereign bodies. Treating them as such is an important part of our system of government.

Nothing would stop them being 'sovereign', in as mucha s they are... but that's where your little joyride runs off the rails. The states aren't sovereign - in fact, the college system makes SURE they're not sovereign, by giving less populous states power to (disproportionately) control the destiny of more populated states.

The Republicans will learn and turn over a new leaf, but truth is, they are not the same party they were in the past.

The Republicans have become militarists, they keep thinking war is the answer for everything for a lot of things. The Republican convention seemed to highlight a war mentality.

As a person I am tired of war.

The Republicans spend money like water. Well they do. They accuse Democrats of being Tax and Spend, but all they do is borrow and spend, and that's not a recipe for a fiscally sound party. Being in a deficit makes the Republicans look like hypocrites. So they really needed to practice what they preach.


Stop courting the extremest right. These people's behavior is appalling. Some of their actions bend very fascist, at least in my mental outlook. Stop takeing this attitude of, my way, my belief, or the highway mentlity.

Republicans may need to look a bit deeper, into their past, Pre-Neo-Conservatism. Because it's obvious there needs to be some pruneing of their fundmentals from that side.

Of course I am a Democrat, but in order for them to connect to me that I might actually consider voting for them, they need to look at those things and change with the times. It's as simple as that.

it isn't that there aren't things worth conserving, its just that they, the republicrats, insist on 'conserving' precisely the wrong things that aren't (when they aren't inventing pseudo-traditions to pretend to conserve)

I've lived in two entirely different nations, and spent some time in one other. The two places I have spent a lot of time are basically microcosm to macrocosm... the UK and the US. What I noticed in the UK is - yes, areas that have low population densities get a pretty short end of the stick when it comes to the amount of attention that they get around election time.. how much input they have into that process, etc. But, even though the bulk of Englands population lives in urban areas, the rural areas have remained somewhat well supported.

Why? If they have such little voice? Simply put - it comes down to two main factors - if you push for attention you get it, and survival. The UK looks after it's farmers, because it needs them.

Why SHOULD 'the farmers' get as pressing a voice in the political process as metropolitan areas? Why are rural voters MORE important than urban?

I don't buy it. Yes - you can argue that x-county, or x-state... is under-represented because it's basically just a couple of houses and a few thousand acres of sand. But then - it SHOULD be under-represented BECAUSE it's just a couple of houses and some fucking sand.


Well said.

I really wish you were right. But in my experience, you simply aren't.

I've been to a number of countries, some good, some functional and some completely whacked, and there's one thing I've seen in pretty much every one - if your area is not important to the reelection of the important politicians, whether they call themselves President, Prime Minister or Grand Wazoo, you get screwed.

Any time there's a conflict between the needs of a "useful" area and "useless" area, the latter loses. Always. And if you don't see the problem with that, don't gabble to me about "fair".

I'm not talking about third-world shitholes, either. I currently live in Western Australia; and W.A. gets screwed over by the Federal Government all the time, because it doesn't have the same population as New South Wales or Victoria. Ecomnomically, W.A. would actually be better off seceding. And W.A. is in a much better position than say, Nebraska or Colorado would be under a direct election system.

People are all up in arms over "One Vote One Value". But frankly, I'm not that enamoured by it. If we effectively disenfranchise a chunk of the country to do it, fair is hardly the word I'd use.
What makes you think America is any different?

I disagree with you when you say the Republicans will never win elections again. People said the same thing about the Democrats in the '80's when the Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House.

But it is correct to say that the party has to change. The fact is the party has moved way too far to the right (by the same token the Democrats moved way too far to the left). There are Republicans who are further to the left than the national leaders. I don't think the party should have a far left policy but moving a little to the left wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as they stick to the core beliefs that have always been a part of the party it will still be the Republican Party.

If I understand the OP's argument, he seems to be stating that even vaguely consistent ideology between elections should be considered secondary to the pursuit of power.

Re-wording, it would be acceptable for a party to complete a 180 degree change of tack on every single substantive issue so long as it brought a return to power closer.

Presumably it's also therefore acceptable to cynically jettison all of the people who've previously voted for you so long as you attract the new voters who'll get you elected.

It's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure it'll win many elections outside, perhaps, of the occasional third world country where personality trumps ideology even more consistently than in the west.

Of course political parties and individuals change their minds on issues, whether out of a desire to increase electability or even sometimes out of principle, but I'm struggling to recall an example in a Western country in the last 50 years where a party went from being fairly right wing to far left over a single election cycle and increased its chances of getting elected as a result.

Maybe someone else can enlighten me.


But the Republican Party did just that in the 60's. Back then the GOP was the "liberal" party, then Barry Goldwater came along and moved the party to the right. They kept moving further and further to the right ever since.

Let's be honest, they're fucked. They're never going to win an election again. The US is effectively a one party state. How can the Republican Party rebuild itself? Or should it's members just disband it and form a new party?

Suppose the GOP is now DOP (Dead Ole Party)...

Who do you see rising up to challange the Dems in 2012?

2000 US presidential election, popular vote:

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

My turn to feed the troll...

Once again you show your ignorance of the political system of the U.S.

The president is not elected by popular vote, never has been. He is elected by the Electoral College.

My turn to feed the troll...

Once again you show your ignorance of the political system of the U.S.

The president is not elected by popular vote, never has been. He is elected by the Electoral College.

True, but it should be by popular vote otherwise you are not exercising a true democratic republic on the presidential level.

True, but it should be by popular vote otherwise you are not exercising a true democratic republic on the presidential level.

Whether or not it should be has no bearing on the fact that he isn't elected by popular vote thus making any talk of such and such candidate had more votes meaningless.

Edit:
as a not -
Concepts of democracy

Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy[19]. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics.

As a preliminary remark, the concept of "one equal vote per adult" did not become a generically-accepted principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the right to vote depended on one's financial situation, sex, race, age, or a combination of these and other factors. Many forms of government in previous times termed "democracy", including for instance the Athenian democracy, would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be classified as plutocracy or a broad oligarchy, because of the rules on how votes were counted.

In a Western approach, warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of direct democracy described since antiquity, there was a convergence towards representative democracy, for republics as well as monarchies, from the Enlightenment on. In particular, the fear of mob rule concerned many who supported representative democracies. A direct democracy instrument like a referendum is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy. Nonetheless, some republics like Switzerland have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with usually several issues put before the people by referendum every year.

Marxism inspired state organisations that, at the height of the Cold War, had barely more than a few external appearances in common with Western types of democracies. That is, not withstanding that on an ideological level Marxism and communism sought to empower proletarians. A Communist republic like Fidel Castro's Cuba has many "popular committees" to allow participation from citizens on a very basic level, without much of a far-reaching political power resulting from that. This approach to democracy is sometimes termed Basic democracy, but the term is contentious: the intended result is often something in between direct democracy and grassroots democracy, but connotations may vary.

Some of the hardline totalitarianism lived on in the East, even after the Iron Curtain fell. Sometimes the full name of such republics can be deceptive: having "people's" or "democratic" in the name of a country can, in some cases bear no relation with the concepts of democracy (neither "representative" nor "direct") that grew in the West. In fact, the phrase "People's Democratic Republic" was often synonymous with Marxist dictatorships during the Cold War. It also should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic that supposes control over who is in power by the people at large – unless it is accepted that the preference the people displays for their leader is in all cases authentic.Just to show the fact that the U.S. can have a president elected not by the popular vote and still qualify as a "democratic republic". Although it is might be more accurate to say that the U.S. is a constitutional republic.

Suppose the GOP is now DOP (Dead Ole Party)...

Who do you see rising up to challange the Dems in 2012?

The funny thing is, if some of Obama's more leftwing policies actually prove obviously fruitful and popular, and this election really does signal the death knell of the Republican Party, I really could see a legitimate, left-of-center party rising up in opposition to the Dems, leeching away the more leftwing members of the party and causing a split along those lines, resulting in the far right being further and further marignalized (as it should be).

I just don't see that party realistically being the Republicans rising out of the ashes. It would probably have to be a whole new party.

Republicans need to go back to what they were before Reagan. Reagan that Neo conservative bastard destroyed the party morals.

Republicans need to go back to what they were before Reagan. Reagan that Neo conservative bastard destroyed the party morals.

Republicans had morals at some point?




...........



Gods that was too easy.

Republicans had morals at some point?




...........



Gods that was too easy.We had Nixon! Oh, wait... Never mind! :D
But in all seriousness, we have had several great leaders that just happened to be Republican. Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant. Just to name a few.

Grant?
What exactly did Grant accomplish that would qualify him as a great leader?

The funny thing is, if some of Obama's more leftwing policies actually prove obviously fruitful and popular, and this election really does signal the death knell of the Republican Party, I really could see a legitimate, left-of-center party rising up in opposition to the Dems, leeching away the more leftwing members of the party and causing a split along those lines, resulting in the far right being further and further marignalized (as it should be).

I just don't see that party realistically being the Republicans rising out of the ashes. It would probably have to be a whole new party.

ah, but who? considering how difficult the Green party is doing and they've been around for years. I can't see a new party rising just like that.

Republicans had morals at some point?




...........



Gods that was too easy.

Considering it was the Republicans that were fighting for the end of Segregation, Black Voting Rights, etc... the answer is yes.

Grant?
What exactly did grant accomplish that would qualify him as a great leader? Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#General-in-Chief_and_strategy_for_victory) He designed the strategy that ended the Civil War.

Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#General-in-Chief_and_strategy_for_victory) He designed the strategy that ended the Civil War.

Fine, he was a great military leader, as a President he was an indecisive nobody.

Fine, he was a great military leader, as a President he was an indecisive nobody.I did not say that he was a great president. I said that he was a great leader.

I did not say that he was a great president. I said that he was a great leader.

And his being a Republican had what to do with his military prowess?

And his being a Republican had what to do with his military prowess?Nothing to do with his military prowess. It had to do with his morals. A shocker, I know.

Nothing to do with his military prowess. It had to do with his morals. A shocker, I know.

Please tell me you don't believe the notion that Republicans have better "morals", whatever that is, than Democrats.

Considering it was the Republicans that were fighting for the end of Segregation, Black Voting Rights, etc... the answer is yes.

lol, sorry, I thought my "Im just saying this to be a dick and its such an easy shot to take, I dont really mean it" would have been obvious.

And for the record, it wasnt only Republicans fighting to end segregation. And the Republicans of 1865 would have been democrats now.

Nothing to do with his military prowess. It had to do with his morals. A shocker, I know.

Grant had morals?


And this one I mean.

Please tell me you don't believe the notion that Republicans have better "morals", whatever that is, than Democrats.I don't believe that. I believe that they have them.

lol, sorry, I thought my "Im just saying this to be a dick and its such an easy shot to take, I dont really mean it" would have been obvious.Which is why I jumped in with the Nixon thing. :D

Considering it was the Republicans that were fighting for the end of Segregation, Black Voting Rights, etc... the answer is yes.


Um, what??

Many Republicans joined with Democrats to fight for those things. But men like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey led the fight.

Leading Republicans like Barry Goldwater fought against civil rights along with the Southern Democrats. Of course the Dixiecrats pretty much all became Republicans eventually.

Grant had morals?


And this one I mean.In the 1880s he wrote that the war was unjust, accepting the theory that it was designed to gain land open to slavery. He wrote in his memoirs about the war against Mexico: "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation". Link.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Mexican.E2.80.93American_War)

I don't believe that. I believe that they have them.

And Democrats don't? :rolleyes:

I don't believe that. I believe that they have them.

You're joking, right?

And Democrats don't? :rolleyes:Did I say that? No. You seem to believe that I think that only one side can have a monopoly on something.
You're joking, right?About every human having some kind of code of conduct? No.

Did I say that? No. You seem to believe that I think that only one side can have a monopoly on something.

That's because your words led us to think so...

Did I say that? No.
It was implied by your emphasis...
You seem to believe that I think that only one side can have a monopoly on something.
I'd be willing to bet you think I'm a Democrat...

That's because your words led us to think so...I was replying to a comment made by another who asked if Republicans have morals. It was not I who implied that just because a person is a part of a political party that he or she does not have morals.
I'd be willing to bet you think I'm a Democrat...
I don't care if you are. You being democratic or not has nothing to do with this discussion.

In the 1880s he wrote that the war was unjust, accepting the theory that it was designed to gain land open to slavery. He wrote in his memoirs about the war against Mexico: "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation". Link.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Mexican.E2.80.93American_War)

He also was a raging alcoholic and one of our more corrupt presidents.

In the 1880s he wrote that the war was unjust, accepting the theory that it was designed to gain land open to slavery. He wrote in his memoirs about the war against Mexico: "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation". Link.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Mexican.E2.80.93American_War)

Grant may well have been a great leader with great morals, but I'm not seeing that based merely on the fact that, long after he fought in Mexican–American War (1846–1848), he wrote that it was a unjust war.

He also was a raging alcoholic and one of our more corrupt presidents.You have me on those two, but that does not mean that he did not have morals.

You have me on those two, but that does not mean that he did not have morals.

No, youre right, it doesnt. But Id say corruption is a strike against his "morality".

You have me on those two, but that does not mean that he did not have morals.

It does however hurt your portrayal of him as a "great leader"

Grant may well have been a great leader with great morals, but I'm not seeing that based merely on the fact that, long after he fought in Mexican–American War (1846–1848), he wrote that it was a unjust war.He wrote it in his memoirs, just before he died. The memoris he wrote to pay of the debt he had incurred when the investment bank he was a member of failed because his partner (Ferdinand Ward) swindled the bank and Grant and forced it into bankruptcy.

He wrote it in his memoirs, just before he died. The memoris he wrote to pay of the debt he had incurred when the investment bank he was a member of failed because his partner (Ferdinand Ward) swindled the bank and Grant and forced it into bankruptcy.

Ookkaaayyy ..... and this shows his great morals, how?

Ookkaaayyy ..... and this shows his great morals, how?

Incompetent/inattentive businessman = great morals?

Ookkaaayyy ..... and this shows his great morals, how?He wrote them to support his family by erasing the debt that his death would place upon them. Having been diagnosed with terminal cancer made it something of a race against time. He finished them a few days before his death, insuring his families ability to end the debt.
Incompetent/inattentive businessman = great morals?He took the advice of his son, who was having success at the time, on Wall Street.

The Republicans are fucked. You haven't had a single sane candidate since Barry Goldwater. So good riddance.

I'd say the Democrats need to be less centrist-politically-correct fools or they will go the same way.

The current political debates should be Dennis Kucinich against Ron Paul. With that, you could get some work done in either direction.

The Republicans are fucked. You haven't had a single sane candidate since Barry Goldwater. So good riddance.

I'd say the Democrats need to be less centrist-politically-correct fools or they will go the same way.

The current political debates should be Dennis Kucinich against Ron Paul. With that, you could get some work done in either direction.

LOL Ron Paul. Nothing would revitalize the Republicans like a racist loon.


The American people have spoken. They rejected Paul's policies.

LOL Ron Paul. Nothing would revitalize the Republicans like a racist loon.


The American people have spoken. They rejected Paul's policies."Dr. No" as president? I think not!

The Republicans are fucked. You haven't had a single sane candidate since Barry Goldwater. So good riddance.

I'd say the Democrats need to be less centrist-politically-correct fools or they will go the same way.

The current political debates should be Dennis Kucinich against Ron Paul. With that, you could get some work done in either direction.

You do realize that the White House is NOT an in-care mental facility?

We had Nixon! Oh, wait... Never mind! :D
But in all seriousness, we have had several great leaders that just happened to be Republican. Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant. Just to name a few.

Three-quarter's of those leaders of the party that you cite were leaders when the Republican Party was the more leftist, progressive of the two political parties. :p