I would like to reform the Electoral College and take away the two votes each state gets for its Senators. That would make it fairer--indeed I believe Al Gore would have been elected in 2000 had that been the case. (I just checked. That is absolutely true--Gore carred 20 states and DC, Bush 30, and Bush won by only 4 electoral votes.) I would also take away the right of electors to cast votes--they would be awarded automatically based upon the certified popular vote. But I would keep the basic structure. An election purely by popular vote could have all sorts of disastrous fluke outcomes. If you had five candidates, one of them could win with 30% of the vote easily. If you made it a two-round election with the second round including only the top two, you would still risk all sorts of problems. Let's mend it, not end it.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

People who "clean for their housecleaners" are in reality tidying up so that the housecleaners don't have to pick up socks, paperwork, and various knickknacks and figure out where to put them before they can vacuum and mop the floors and dust the table tops. It seems to be common courtesy, not a sign of being an insecure neurotic.

Thanks, Wonkette. I think he was envisioning the "nasty-neat" cleanliness of the Great Power Saeculum, when "Sanitary" was the watchword for everything. This saeculum's designated "catch-22 obsession all women must pay lip service to and will by mocked for if they don't obey it and also if they go overboard" isn't cleanliness, it's weight. Fat. That of the Civil War saeculum was apparently Propriety.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would like to reform the Electoral College and take away the two votes each state gets for its Senators. That would make it fairer--indeed I believe Al Gore would have been elected in 2000 had that been the case. (I just checked. That is absolutely true--Gore carred 20 states and DC, Bush 30, and Bush won by only 4 electoral votes.) I would also take away the right of electors to cast votes--they would be awarded automatically based upon the certified popular vote. But I would keep the basic structure. An election purely by popular vote could have all sorts of disastrous fluke outcomes. If you had five candidates, one of them could win with 30% of the vote easily. If you made it a two-round election with the second round including only the top two, you would still risk all sorts of problems. Let's mend it, not end it.

You don't come from a small state with a small population and a great fear of the city folk overriding your interests, I take it?

Pat from new Mexico.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You don't come from a small state with a small population and a great fear of the city folk overriding your interests, I take it?

Pat from new Mexico.

I understand the fear, but reality is typically the opposite. Here in Virginia, the rural vote, now about 40% of the statewide total, has dominated the state since it became one. I think that even very clever gerrymandering won't be able to keep that in place after this Census. I live n the more rural part. The apoplexy is already in evidence.

Man arrested for threatening to kill Cantor

This guy sounds like a religious nutjob. This threat, at first glance, doesn't appear to have anything to do with HCR.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I understand the fear, but reality is typically the opposite. Here in Virginia, the rural vote, now about 40% of the statewide total, has dominated the state since it became one. I think that even very clever gerrymandering won't be able to keep that in place after this Census. I live n the more rural part. The apoplexy is already in evidence.

I am not so hot to change the electoral college. One of the things it practically assures is that we will only have two parties. I think that is a good thing especially if we are headed into a fractious period.

The thing that bothers me about current protocols is the ridiculous place of Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process. How about we pick two states at random instead? One from the top 25 states in population and one from the bottom 25 states. No state to repeat until every state has had a shot.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am not so hot to change the electoral college. One of the things it practically assures is that we will only have two parties. I think that is a good thing especially if we are headed into a fractious period.

I don't agree that only two parties is a good thing, but I also don't agree that the EC is what assures that. Our nonproportional, winner-take-all, district-based system of electing representatives in Congress is what does it. Democracies with multiple parties also have proportional representation of some kind. As long as there can be only one winner per election, it will continue to pay to cluster efforts behind a single umbrella candidate.

Actually that would be true for the presidency anyway, even if we were to change to a proportional system.

About David's argument re someone winning with a minority/plurality of the vote, that's happened several times already, EC or no EC. In fact, Bill Clinton won twice with a minority/plurality, but the most strikingly obvious such occurrence was this election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_U....ntial_election

With four candidates in the running, Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote. The two Democratic candidates (northern and southern) together beat him with 47% of the vote (still not a majority).

Almost as striking was this election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_U....ntial_election

In this case it was the Republicans who split, throwing the election to Wilson with just under 42% of the popular vote. TR and Taft together won 50.6%, an actual majority.

So the EC is not really a safeguard against that sort of thing.

Eliminating the Electoral College would in fact, render null and void the US Republic. I would not be looking forward to having opposing parties for a coalition, just to have it unfold 6-months later, like most democracies. Then we are just another country in the world without much of an identity with our type of political system. If you want this, then please support the North American Union as proposed by Bush and implemented by Obama.

The day I give up my green-back for the Amero; is the day I will no longer care and will fight this takeover of our country.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So the EC is not really a safeguard against that sort of thing.

Certainly not an absolute safeguard. What the EC does, especially with winner take all in each state (or almost each state, I think NB and ME do it differently), is put the voter interested in a third party in a predicament where the most likely outcome of voting for the third party is to elect the candidate you are most ideologically distant from. Vote for Breckinridge (the southern candidate) and Lincoln wins. Vote for TR and Wilson wins. Most recently, vote for Perot and Clinton wins. This acts as a restraint on the viability of third parties.

In a multi party state, compromise takes place after the elections where multiple parties work out a majority (like we are seeing in Iraq right now). In a two party system, each voter has to compromise within him/herself to vote since it is unlikely either party's platform has everything you want. The compromises takes place in each voter before voting instead of after. Each election becomes a battle over the middle. I think this lends great stability to our process, and this stability should be particularly valuable in a 4T.

James50

I like the idea of a multi-party democracy, though, as it would help to avoid the corruption that bleeds into our system. Suppose we had proportional representation. Let's say you're an ideological Green who tends to vote Democratic under the present system, or an ideological Libertarian who tends to vote Republican. You do that because to vote Green or Lib would be to throw your vote away. This means that the D or R candidate can to some extent take the voters for granted. He knows that there's only one serious alternative in town and in most cases that he has a pretty low bar to jump to stay ahead of that alternative. Thus, he's more inclined to pay attention and feel an obligation to his campaign donors than his voters.

With proportional representation, the downside of voting for a third party that better fits your preferences is removed. The D or R candidate has to pay more attention to the wishes of his constituents or lose, not just to the R or D respectively, but maybe to the G or L or whatever. Particularly if we also institute public funding of campaigns, this would go a long way of curing the problems that currently beset our politics.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The D or R candidate has to pay more attention to the wishes of his constituents or lose, not just to the R or D respectively, but maybe to the G or L or whatever. Particularly if we also institute public funding of campaigns, this would go a long way of curing the problems that currently beset our politics.

AMEN!! This is why I vote both R and D, depending on the candidate, and then remain an active constituent. I think that's part of the equation, too... we have greater responsibility than just casting votes.

Originally Posted by ASB65

First let me say that I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh and do not agree with his views. However, I do think Rush Limbaugh is a fairly intellegent man. I also understand that he is an entertainer who his appealing to his audience. Whether or not he truly does not believe in the theory of evolution deep down inside, I don't know. However, I can tell you that my neighbor and friend, who is an engineer with a bachelor of science degree, does not believe in this theory of evolution because of his religious fundamental upbringing. I was shocked when I discovered this about our friend. He is an intelligent, college educated man. It is a matter of faith for him. This only goes to show how those with deep far right religious convictions, supersedes commonly accepted scientific thought.

Watching Limbaugh reminds me of this, so whenever I actually watch the tube & for some reason I channel surf past Limbaugh, I just start laughing if Limbaugh ever comes on.

Here in America we all have the rights of freedom and religion and freedom of speech. And even though I don't agree with this particular ideology, I understand that just because someone doesn't feel the same way I do, doesn't mean they are ignorant. There is no black and white. There are always shades of gray. Both sides do need to learn tolerance for each other and have respect each other's opinions and convictions. (And that goes for Rush Limbaugh too. But then of course, he wouldn't have a show.)

Agreed.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Man arrested for threatening to kill Cantor

This guy sounds like a religious nutjob. This threat, at first glance, doesn't appear to have anything to do with HCR.

Just saw this story on the news. His threats had an anti-semitic tone. I think this guy has more in common with the Michigan Militia group that was arrested in Michigan than those worked up over health care.

In another unrelated story discussed on CNN regarding the Michigan militia group they said that these extreme militia groups have been on the rise in the last 12 to 18 months, not seen since the 1990's. To me, this particular group and others out there with the same ideology are the Christian version of al qaeda. All of the rhetoric and anger out there that is whipped up by otherwise reasonable people is encouraging these groups to form and act out on their anger...No big surprise there.

I feel the basis of most of this anger out there goes right back to the economy and the fear of or actual home, job loss, etc. Until most of America feels more secure financially, I believe we will continue to see these types of groups rise. They feel vindicated by more mainstream groups like the tea party movement.

Oh and also, "hate radio" commentators need to shut up too.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Like I said, violence begets violence, and nothing good becomes of it.
OK dude, I'm fully willing to admit that the inner city riots, Kent State, the SLA, MOVE, etc. (lefty extremism) from the 2T were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. :: Rags tosses the gauntlet down:: Can YOU admit that factions of the tea party movement and militias, Timothy Mcveigh (who did domestic terrorism right here in Oklahoma) are also, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

No, not at all. Violence is the only thing that could stop authoritarian Nazism and Bushidoism.

What? Were we free peoples to simply pacify and lie down in the face of these egregious threats to human liberty, because "nothing good becomes of" of violence?

Get real. The "violence" you disapprove of is, in truth, opposition to your ideas on how the world should work. In your worldview everyone should all be happy that Big Government provides for everyone's needs. In your worldview everybody who disagrees with your worldview should henceforth be defeated, one way or the other. Surely you cannot fathom a happy world wherein Ronny Reagan and we individualist "fascist" allies rule the world, right?

Surprise! Surprise! I feel exactly the same way as you do. I believe those people, who believe We The Government should have more and more control over We The People can do, need to be defeated, and defeated, and defeated yet again, one way or the other.

So yes, we agree to disagree, dude. And may the best idea of the role of government win the day, eh?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Man arrested for threatening to kill Cantor

This guy sounds like a religious nutjob. This threat, at first glance, doesn't appear to have anything to do with HCR.

Your lack of any feeling or outrage is revealing. Were this man somehow tied to the Tea Party, your post would have sounded a loud clarion call. That this disturbed man was an Obama/Democrat Party supporter thus makes for reporting this news story indescribably routine.

Oh, well, what's new, eh?

Originally Posted by Publius

No, not at all. Violence is the only thing that could stop authoritarian Nazism and Bushidoism.

Oh, OK, to clarify for .... I think Publius is some sort of reincarnation...

Violence for the sake of violence (think gangland/ an invasion, of course requires a violent attack back. That's just plain common sense, which is why it just flew past me in the prior post.

What? Were we free peoples to simply pacify and lie down in the face of these egregious threats to human liberty, because "nothing good becomes of" of violence?

Hmmm... yeah, but incitement thereof by Limbaugh the Hutt on the right and the Weather Underground back in the 2T on the left. Sorry, a pox on both of those houses.

Get real. The "violence" you disapprove of is, in truth, opposition to your ideas on how the world should work. In your worldview everyone should all be happy that Big Government provides for everyone's needs. In your worldview everybody who disagrees with your worldview should henceforth be defeated, one way or the other. Surely you cannot fathom a happy world wherein Ronny Reagan and we individualist "fascist" allies rule the world, right?

And the Army/Navy/police/etc. aren't part of some government. What do want, some crap like Blackwater?

Surprise! Surprise! I feel exactly the same way as you do. I believe those, who believe We The Government should have more and more control over We The People need to be defeated, and defeated and defeated yet again, one way or the other.

So yes, we agree to disagree, dude. And may the best idea of the role of government win the day, eh?

::yawn:: standard issue misdirected logic from reincarnated <somebody Rags knows>. Who is "the government" ? Who is "the people" ? The whole paragraph above in a convoluted mess.

In case no one here has heard, the Democrat Party's headquarters in Alaska was vandalized.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_517834.html

Those horrible tea partiers are a threat to...!

Get real. Liberals are getting worked up over some stupid stuff. Last I checked, the U.S. is still waging war on... everyone.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Who is "the government" ? Who is "the people" ?

A well-stated, though trite and distracting, meme of leftist elitists who wish to use the power of Big Government to wield absolute power over the liberty of the governed.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Those horrible tea partiers are a threat to...!

Get real. Liberals are getting worked up over some stupid stuff. Last I checked, the U.S. is still waging war on... everyone.

I disagree, getting worked up over racial insults, homophobia, threats of violence and acts of vandalism is not crazy talk. I agree that some of it may be a little too much considering that there have been no deaths yet, but the actions of the teabaggers should not be ignored.

Originally Posted by Wes84

That's right, getting worked up over racial insults, homophobia, threats of violence and acts of vandalism is crazy talk.

Racial insults and homophobia are new to right-wingers? News to me.

Threats of violence are no joke (though vandalizing a DNC HQ is good for a laugh), but liberal attention is misplaced here. What ever happened to the anti-war movement?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Racial insults and homophobia are new to right-wingers? News to me.

Threats of violence are no joke (though vandalizing a DNC HQ is good for a laugh), but liberal attention is misplaced here. What ever happened to the anti-war movement?

Ok, I give you that about the racism, and homophobia. But I still do not think the vandalism of the DNC HQ or any other building is a laughing matter. Oh well, maybe I am taking it too seriously.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Those horrible tea partiers are a threat to...!

Get real. Liberals are getting worked up over some stupid stuff. Last I checked, the U.S. is still waging war on... everyone.

There is no logical connection between wars being waged by the U.S. abroad, and the threat of domestic insurgency here, and to bring the one up as a response to concern about the other is a nonsequitur.

What's actually happened so far isn't so much of a much, but the danger is real, and doesn't rise so much from the Tea Partiers per se as it does from the militia movement. There's a lot of civil-war thinking among militia types. Not all of them (nor even most of them) share the religious apocalyptic thought of the bunch that got arrested recently and are accused of conspiracy to murder police officers and try to spark a revolution, nor are all of them (or even most of them) believers in the race-war idea that consumes some. But all of them believe that they are training for an inevitable war against the government. The violence displayed by the right recently is the tip of the iceberg. In itself it's mostly minor stuff, but it's the immediately-visible portion of something potentially much bigger and more dangerous.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

People who "clean for their housecleaners" are in reality tidying up so that the housecleaners don't have to pick up socks, paperwork, and various knickknacks and figure out where to put them before they can vacuum and mop the floors and dust the table tops. It seems to be common courtesy, not a sign of being an insecure neurotic.

There's also a bit of enlightened self-interest. Should the housekeeper pick up all those stray items and put them wherever before cleaning up... there's a good chance you won't be able to easily find them later.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

The Tea bagger movement was quickly co-opted and is being used as a tool to a) syphon off boomer anger and more importantly b) justify a counter insurgency. If they can get a coherant program together for a 60 minute entertainment show, what do you think can be done with the same talking points on every channel.

I could have swore that I posted about the shrinking perception between terrorists and american protesters, etc. ( I can't find it now -maybe I posted it elsewhere) I have noted the language changes going on. The Militia groups that were busted are getting WAY different labels than they would have 10 years ago. The Militias haven't changed so much as the way that they are being presented on the MSM. Can you imagine if Columbine happened last week? The talking heads wouldn't be asking 'what when wrong with these kids?', they rather be asking 'How were these kids infiltrated by Al Qaeda?' The game is perception management. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of Edward Bernays? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

How about this video for starters:

The Century Of The Self - Part 1 of 4

If you don't think that the media is rolling out sophisticated propaganda (or PR as it has been refered to for the past 100 yrs), you VASTLY underestimate the potential benifits of doing so. Or is PR something that is only done by evil 'other' nations (like N.Korea, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, cold war Russia, etc.)

Poet Robert Bly states in "The Sibling Society" that we are the first culture that has colonized itself. What do you suppose he meant?