US Elections 2008

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

"Winner takes all" is a necessary part of American politics because of how the powers of the state and the federal government are split up.

I agree. However when the popular vote is not taken into consideration at all you run the risk of overly misrepresentation of the public. I'd like to see a style where for instant 80% of the electoral vote is divided the traditional way, and 20% is split based on popular vote. Anyways i think we're getting a little off topic.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I'm starting to hate the Democracts system of spliting the delegates.


Why can't they just use "winner takes all"?

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

"Winner takes all" is a necessary part of American politics because of how the powers of the state and the federal government are split up.

The "winner takes all" system is slowly being depreciated because of its many many flaws. It is considered a relic by many that doesn't accurately represent the country. The democrats would have had a repeat of the 2000 election within their own party if it was winner take all. (Obama would have the popular vote and Clinton would have the delegates.)

Proportional allocation has its own problems too, however they are a different monster entirely.

There are numerous referendums and movements to remove the per-state winner takes all system at the presidential level. The most popular of such is one that allocates electors according to the popular vote. Another system that is being considered is the one currently in use in Maine and Nebraska where all the senate electoral votes are given to the winner of the state and the rest are given to the winner of the various congressional districts.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Another system that is being considered is the one currently in use in Maine and Nebraska where all the senate electoral votes are given to the winner of the state and the rest are given to the winner of the various congressional districts.

So, Senators are "Winner takes all", and Representatives are majority vote?

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

So, Senators are "Winner takes all", and Representatives are majority vote?

No. Elections for both Senators and Representatives are winner-takes-all (at least in most places; it may differ state-to-state or district-to-district).

You're confused because of the way states are awarded electoral college votes. The number of electoral college votes a state has is equal it's number of Senators (always 2) plus it's number of Representatives (at least 1), so every state has at least 3 electoral college votes. Most states (all but two) award all their electoral college votes to the candidate that receives the most votes (not necessarily a majority of votes).

Maine does it differently. Maine has a total of four electoral college votes. Two of them (the two representative of Maine's two Senators) are awarded to whoever gets the most votes, like in almost every other state. The remaining two electoral college votes (representative of Maine's two Representatives) are awarded individually to whoever receives the most votes in each House of Representatives district.

For example, if candidate A receives 51% of every vote cast in Maine, then A would receive 2 electoral college votes (representative of the Senators). But if candidate B receives 53% of the vote within one district, then B would receive that district's electoral college vote. Candidate A of course would have to have won the other district (to have won the state overall) and would thus receive a total of 3 electoral college votes to B's 1. This is assuming there were only two candidates.

[Xellos-_^]

The thing about American politics is that the Founding Fathers, design the government for gridlock and set up the electoral college system so that the Most popular person might not win the presidency. Washing, jefferson, Adams and the bunch wanted representive government but they also fear mob rule. Their compromise was the electoral college. And the government was design so that the Majority doesn't always rule.

As someone said Democracy is where 51% of people take away the rights of the other 49%.

That is why USA is a Republic NOT a true Democracy.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The thing about American politics is that the Founding Fathers, design the government for gridlock and set up the electoral college system so that the Most popular person might not win the presidency. Washing, jefferson, Adams and the bunch wanted representive government but they also fear mob rule. Their compromise was the electoral college. And the government was design so that the Majority doesn't always rule.

As someone said Democracy is where 51% of people take away the rights of the other 49%.

That is why USA is a Republic NOT a true Democracy.

Well, actually one of the largest reasons for the electoral college was the fear of mobs running the government.

[james0246]

I have always wondered, why don't the primaries come in groups of 10. Specifically, why are there not 5 Super Tuesdays in which 10 states (and the various other places (Guam etc.) mixed in) are voting at one time (so, the first election day would have 10 state primaries/caucases then the second election day would have the next 10 and so on until there is a winner.) Is it to much of a hasel to do it this way, or does the media prefer another way, etc ?

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The thing about American politics is that the Founding Fathers, design the government for gridlock and set up the electoral college system so that the Most popular person might not win the presidency. Washing, jefferson, Adams and the bunch wanted representive government but they also fear mob rule. Their compromise was the electoral college. And the government was design so that the Majority doesn't always rule.

As someone said Democracy is where 51% of people take away the rights of the other 49%.

That is why USA is a Republic NOT a true Democracy.

The Untied States was Republic since the beginning never a Democracy . Hell even the whole government system was decided by bunch of elites at Philadelphia Convention. Also you made a mistake on Jefferson, he would have loved a rebellion as he himself said
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
And I still don't get why Clinton is running, she basically has near zero chance of winning and at this rate Democrat are going to lose this race and I really don't want Republican to be a president.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by james3wk

I have always wondered, why don't the primaries come in groups of 10. Specifically, why are there not 5 Super Tuesdays in which 10 states (and the various other places (Guam etc.) mixed in) are voting at one time (so, the first election day would have 10 state primaries/caucases then the second election day would have the next 10 and so on until there is a winner.) Is it to much of a hasel to do it this way, or does the media prefer another way, etc ?

It is decide by that state when they want the primary. Except Iowa and NH which always wants to be first and both Rep and Dem accept this. Which to me makes absolutely no sense as neither Iowa or NH represent the current US at all or really that important in the general election as they have very few electoral votes.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

I was talking about the primaries, not the general election... But the primaries are over, so I'll talk about the general election now.

These are my predictions for the general election. The number next to each state and candidate indicate electoral college votes; 270 are needed to win.

McCain: (274 total)
Texas (34)
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
Georgia (15)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Tennessee (11)
Missouri (11)
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Alabama (9)
Louisiana (9)
South Carolina (8)
Kentucky (8)
Oklahoma (7)
Mississippi (6)
Arkansas (6)
Kansas (6)
Utah (5)
Nevada (5)
West Virginia (5)
Nebraska (5)
Idaho (4)
Montana (3)
South Dakota (3)
Alaska (3)
North Dakota (3)
Wyoming (3)

Obama: (264 total)
California (55)
New York (31)
Illinois (21)
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
New Jersey (15)
Massachusetts (12)
Washington (11)
Maryland (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Oregon (7)
Connecticut (7)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Hawaii (4)
Rhode Island (4)
Delaware (3)
Vermont (3)
Washingotn, D.C. (3)


And I predict this outcome as someone who hopes Obama will win. : (

but you have to put into count that many Red States and some purple states will swing Obama's way because of the new Democratic voters that came out, and alot of people doesnt want to go through Bush Term III with McCain.

I know that Georgia, SC, NC (?) may turn into Blue states because some of the new voters there. Georgia and NC is very important since they are part of the Big 12 and produce 30 votes between both of them. Those 30 votes can be big for Obama if he wins there and also if he wins Missouri will be big as well.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by james3wk

I have always wondered, why don't the primaries come in groups of 10. Specifically, why are there not 5 Super Tuesdays in which 10 states (and the various other places (Guam etc.) mixed in) are voting at one time (so, the first election day would have 10 state primaries/caucases then the second election day would have the next 10 and so on until there is a winner.) Is it to much of a hasel to do it this way, or does the media prefer another way, etc ?

Five big primary days would severely hurt newer, less well known and financed candidates. If the primaries had started off with 10 states voting at once then Obama would've been smashed by Hillary Clinton. This is because she is a lot more well known in the country, had a bigger campaign, and more money in the beginning.

Allowing four primaries/caucuses to vote before the official starting date makes it easier for an underdog to rise up. They don't have to spend millions on TV commercials trying to reach tens of millions of people. Instead they can go around a few small states making a name for themselves like Obama and Huckabee did.

Obama did very well in the contests right after Super Tuesday when at most three states were voting at once. He could concentrate his campaigning on one or a few states at a time, going in and completely tearing apart Clinton's huge leads in polls. People had known and liked Clinton just because of who her husband is, but it's a lot better when primaries are decided by actual campaigning instead of name recognition and TV ads (which are more influential in big states and Super Tuesdays).

Many of the states that Clinton won on Super Tuesday would've surely gone for Obama is they had voted later at separate times, allowing him to have a chance to campaign fully there.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Five big primary days would severely hurt newer, less well known and financed candidates. If the primaries had started off with 10 states voting at once then Obama would've been smashed by Hillary Clinton. This is because she is a lot more well known in the country, had a bigger campaign, and more money in the beginning.

Allowing four primaries/caucuses to vote before the official starting date makes it easier for an underdog to rise up. They don't have to spend millions on TV commercials trying to reach tens of millions of people. Instead they can go around a few small states making a name for themselves like Obama and Huckabee did.

Obama did very well in the contests right after Super Tuesday when at most three states were voting at once. He could concentrate his campaigning on one or a few states at a time, going in and completely tearing apart Clinton's huge leads in polls. People had known and liked Clinton just because of who her husband is, but it's a lot better when primaries are decided by actual campaigning instead of name recognition and TV ads (which are more influential in big states and Super Tuesdays).

Many of the states that Clinton won on Super Tuesday would've surely gone for Obama is they had voted later at separate times, allowing him to have a chance to campaign fully there.

Or vice versa many of the state Obama won would go to Clinton at a later election date. People do change thier mind and some did after the wright affair.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by james3wk

I have always wondered, why don't the primaries come in groups of 10. Specifically, why are there not 5 Super Tuesdays in which 10 states (and the various other places (Guam etc.) mixed in) are voting at one time (so, the first election day would have 10 state primaries/caucases then the second election day would have the next 10 and so on until there is a winner.) Is it to much of a hasel to do it this way, or does the media prefer another way, etc ?

To add on to what others said:
New Hampshire has it written into their state constitution that they will have the first primary in the nation by a week. It's a tradition thing for the state.

The reason we don't have multiple Super Tuesdays is actually more likely because the DNC and RNC do not want it. It means a lot of unfocused campaigning between the events and probably would increase overall costs. Currently, they only need to focus on one or two states between primaries. For things like Super Tuesday, it becomes very difficult to pick and choose where to campaign.

Also, Super Tuesday is technically a media and state's party invention. What happened with Super Tuesday was that in previous years, the primaries were decided very early on and thus the later states had pretty much no influence. So all these states decided to move their primaries back to the earliest allowed date, thus forming Super Tuesday. This is all trying to make it so that the state and the voters are important again.

There are ideas to reform this system by having multiple block votes over a long period of time and/or a rotating block system which both in effect for multiple optimized Super Tuesdays.

[Xellos-_^]

for the primaries, i think the parties should just let the states decide when they want to go. If they all want to have a election on 1/1, let them. The MI and FL debacle is a result of the Dems trying to let certain states have more influence (NC and NV). Just let every state decide when they want to have thier election.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

And I still don't get why Clinton is running, she basically has near zero chance of winning and at this rate Democrat are going to lose this race and I really don't want Republican to be a president.

That's what Clinton probably wants, sabotage Obama and rerun in '12.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

That's what Clinton probably wants, sabotage Obama and rerun in '12.

Are the Obama supporters already conceding thier candidate will lose in the general election?

Don't blame Clinton if Obama loses in the general. If Obama loses it is because he is a flaw candidate, like Kerry who allow himself to be swiftboat.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

No. Elections for both Senators and Representatives are winner-takes-all (at least in most places; it may differ state-to-state or district-to-district).

You're confused because of the way states are awarded electoral college votes. The number of electoral college votes a state has is equal it's number of Senators (always 2) plus it's number of Representatives (at least 1), so every state has at least 3 electoral college votes. Most states (all but two) award all their electoral college votes to the candidate that receives the most votes (not necessarily a majority of votes).

Maine does it differently. Maine has a total of four electoral college votes. Two of them (the two representative of Maine's two Senators) are awarded to whoever gets the most votes, like in almost every other state. The remaining two electoral college votes (representative of Maine's two Representatives) are awarded individually to whoever receives the most votes in each House of Representatives district.

For example, if candidate A receives 51% of every vote cast in Maine, then A would receive 2 electoral college votes (representative of the Senators). But if candidate B receives 53% of the vote within one district, then B would receive that district's electoral college vote. Candidate A of course would have to have won the other district (to have won the state overall) and would thus receive a total of 3 electoral college votes to B's 1. This is assuming there were only two candidates.

I was asking about the "other system", thank you.

I know how the electoral college , although the system that Maine/Nebraska uses was unknown to me until now.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Are the Obama supporters already conceding thier candidate will lose in the general election?

Don't blame Clinton if Obama loses in the general. If Obama loses it is because he is a flaw candidate, like Kerry who allow himself to be swiftboat.

Nobody is conceding anything. It should be explained that this is a theory for something that has not happened yet, but many out there who are expecting it to happen, believe it might have already happened, or suspect that it has been at least considered by the Clinton camp.

The origin of all of this is the number of times that Clinton has suggested that her people vote for McCain if she does not win the nomination and the polls show a sizable number of her supporters will do exactly that. She has not actually said it, but has implied that McCain would make a better candidate than Obama on multiple topics. People are viewing it as an attempt to subconsciously ruin Obama since he is winning and make it so McCain wins while she gets another attempt in 2012.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Are the Obama supporters already conceding thier candidate will lose in the general election?

Don't blame Clinton if Obama loses in the general. If Obama loses it is because he is a flaw candidate, like Kerry who allow himself to be swiftboat.

Sorry, but its a bit of self-denial and illogical NOT to consider her impact on the general election - whatever Repub supporters try on Obama should he be the Dem candidate. Historically, the Dems have done themselves in at least 3 times I can think of in the 20th Century with analogous primary campaigns -- the losing candidate did not help to shore up party support from their supporters after the primary.

[Ezek]

I've been watching the democratic race off and on, and I can't believe it still hasn't been over yet. Hillary's chances of winning dropped off the radar when Obama made sweeping and crushing victories eleven times in a row. She clung on and what has happened? She won PA, lost Indiana by a large margin, and barely won NC. Now the super delegates are jumping ship. The Clinton campaign is done - I don't see any reason as to why she's staying in the race aside from pride and arrogance. At the beginning, I think everyone thought the democratic candidate would be Clinton.

Her campaign has already dealt enough damage to the Democratic party as a whole and she really should pull out before it gets worse. Her supporters generally are blind as well. I frequent both sides of the fence's forums and the Hillary forums have raves that I simply can't believe an intelligent being would say:

Originally Posted by On Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama

Most of the ones, like [Ted] Kerry, are just mad over the Clintons not doing enough for them, or not campaigning for them enough in their house races, or not giving them the jobs they want. Kennedy and Caroline, I believe, just are jealous of the Clintons and don't want the Clinton legacy to outdue the Kennedy legacy.

Any Clinton supporter stating that they will vote for Mccain over Obama truly needs to wake up. They're going to end up hurting themselves in the long run. But hey, what do I care.