US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

"Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate," said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. "Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...ate-rep,27371/

Nope, couldn't possibly have seen that attracting the extremist "social conservatives" into the tent might turn out to be a fatal idea, no sir.... oops.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It depends on:
1) How badly they lose the Prez race, despite all the vote suppression and other shenanigans.
2) Do they lose control of the House (and a few Senate seats as well)?

If they are marginalized to that extent... I'm pretty sure there would be a virtual purge. The problem is I'm not quite sure *who* would do the purging - the corporatist wing or the theocracy/segregationist wing. But I'm fairly sure they would separate.

One possibility is I see the overlords of corporatism basically buying up the Democrat side so its somewhat likely they'd jump ship completely and we're getting the "New boss same as the old boss" rhyme of the Demcrats simply being the new GOP. Then the Democrats would probably have a shakeup as the progressives and greens broke off. Either way I see the "social conservatives" being completely marginalized -- with the possible result of more of them resorting to violence and terrorism ala "Merican Tallybann".

Yeah, well, we're not sending a peacekeeping task force in that hornet's nest.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, well, we're not sending a peacekeeping task force in that hornet's nest.

i will bet the avg American gun owner is better arm then any European army

[Ithekro]

Well we certainly have more territory than any average European country has to deal with. People thing getting bogged down in some desert country or Southeast Asia is bad...wait until someone has to fucntional take a third or more of North America (the rest being mostly Canada, then Mexico and Central America). Those mountain ranges might prove to be a problem as well, even with the Interstate Freeway system in place. While the Great American Desert might be an interesting place to fight...tactics have changed a lot since the last time there was a war in North America.

The Republican Party might implode if they lose large this election. However I don't know how they are doing on the State level since the news usually only follow the national level Presidential race and some local politics (and this being California, no one around here seriously thinks the state will swing Republican again soon...at least not until Boxer and Feinstein (up for reelection this year) are gone. Representatives are 34-19 in favor of the Democrats as it is now.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i will bet the avg American gun owner is better arm then any European army

I sometimes joke that I think the social-neocon zealots are misinformed about how well armed the progressives and libertarians are. They'd be better off retreating to their Idaho or Appalachian secret places and dropping out.

[Rozen Van Kaizer]

Very sad......

[speedyexpress48]

Originally Posted by Rozen Van Kaizer

Very sad......

Hey, that's how George W. Bush won the 2000 election over Al Gore, give them some credit.../sarcasm

[Rozen Van Kaizer]

Originally Posted by speedyexpress48

Hey, that's how George W. Bush won the 2000 election over Al Gore, give them some credit.../sarcasm

That was a nightmare......



This guy makes it sound very easy!

[Ledgem]

Has anyone seen this 2008 speech that Santorum gave? This is a real winner:

"If you were Satan, who would you attack?" the former U.S. senator asked the students. "There's no one else to go after other than the United States, and that's been the case, for now, almost 200 years."

Gee, if I were Satan? Well, if hell were really crappy and I really resented being stuck there, I'd probably be going after God. If I didn't mind hell and were just free to screw around as I wished, I'd probably be going after self-righteous pricks like Santorum. The United States of America? That would be a damn boring target.

Santorum said Satan was first, and most successfully, attacked academia. Once academia fell to pride and its own truths, he said, the Protestant Church fell next in the United States.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it," he said.

From there, he turned to U.S. culture, lambasting the National Basketball Association, rock concerts and movie sets. "They are peacocks on display, and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable," which he said was further evidence of spiritual warfare.

I still think that the people saying Santorum wants to bring the Christian version of sharia law to the United States are making pretty big exaggerations, but it's honestly not hard to see where the idea comes from. Railing at rock concerts? What's next - saying that women dress too provocatively, and we should force them to cover up?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I consider myself lucky that Australia has a preferential system. That was the only reason the Greens are able to make a difference. The two major parties were turning into clones of each other, and the increased Greens vote gave them a wake up call somewhat. In short, give us a choice or we go for someone else.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In short, give us a choice or we go for someone else.

Theoretically, the USA allows for that too. It's just that there are far, far too many people who tote the party's lines regardless of what they may be.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GDB

Theoretically, the USA allows for that too. It's just that there are far, far too many people who tote the party's lines regardless of what they may be.

Ah, but the preferential system means you would be able to vote for, say,Ron Paul without spoilering, as an example. A Democrat can vote for Ron Paul and yet put Obama in as 2nd choice. While a Republican can vote for Ron Paul and put Romney 2nd. This is only possible in Preferential, or Ron Paul gets nothing.

People who say "if you don't vote for the two major parties you are throwing your vote away" are only saying it because of the first past the post system.

Preferential means I can always put the party I hate the most, last. And my vote will always be counted even if my first choice doesn't win.

[GDB]

Ah, so it's tiered? Like... 0.6 vote for #1, 0.3 vote for #2, 0.1 vote for #3?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GDB

Ah, so it's tiered? Like... 0.6 vote for #1, 0.3 vote for #2, 0.1 vote for #3?

In preferential voting, you number the candidates by the order you prefer. So you have candidates A, B and C. And you label on your vote which order you prefer them.

Let's say A and B are major party candidates, but you like the minor candidate C better. You put a "1" next to C, and 2 and 3 on the other two candidates. This means even though C has no real chance of winning, you still get to choose which of the major parties you like more.

[GDB]

But what does that actually do?

[Kokukirin]

In preferential system, voters rank the candidates. Then it goes through a loop that eliminates the candidate with least votes every turn. If your favorite candidate is eliminated, your vote is transferred to your second-favorite. Then the votes are counted again. The process repeats until a candidate gets the majority of votes.

With this system, voters don't have to worry that their votes are wasted when they vote for a minor party. It helps to lift the burden from voters to vote "tactically".

Take Canada as an example. The Conservatives have around 35% to 40% support, but because the main oppositions NDP and Liberals spread the left-leaning votes, Conservatives get to win seats without a majority support. If a preferential system is used, people can transfer votes to the Liberal if the NDP candidate has fewest votes. Making it harder for Conservatives to get a majority government without over 40% support.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Ah, but the preferential system means you would be able to vote for, say,Ron Paul without spoilering, as an example. A Democrat can vote for Ron Paul and yet put Obama in as 2nd choice. While a Republican can vote for Ron Paul and put Romney 2nd. This is only possible in Preferential, or Ron Paul gets nothing.

People who say "if you don't vote for the two major parties you are throwing your vote away" are only saying it because of the first past the post system.

Preferential means I can always put the party I hate the most, last. And my vote will always be counted even if my first choice doesn't win.

Preferential Voting gave Oakland Jean Quan as mayor(did not win the 1st place vote). She has been only a year and there is already a recall election to get her out.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

In preferential system, voters rank the candidates. Then it goes through a loop that eliminates the candidate with least votes every turn. If your favorite candidate is eliminated, your vote is transferred to your second-favorite. Then the votes are counted again. The process repeats until a candidate gets the majority of votes.

I kind of like that, but we'd need to update our entire voting process to implement anything close to it. Too many places still use physical scantrons and shit for voting. Still, interesting to know.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Has anyone seen this 2008 speech that Santorum gave? This is a real winner:


Gee, if I were Satan? Well, if hell were really crappy and I really resented being stuck there, I'd probably be going after God. If I didn't mind hell and were just free to screw around as I wished, I'd probably be going after self-righteous pricks like Santorum. The United States of America? That would be a damn boring target.


I still think that the people saying Santorum wants to bring the Christian version of sharia law to the United States are making pretty big exaggerations, but it's honestly not hard to see where the idea comes from. Railing at rock concerts? What's next - saying that women dress too provocatively, and we should force them to cover up?

Actually, the "church ladies" and men of CPAC already harumphed over the way their younger attendees dressed. Apparently the lame and modest modern version of miniskirts or v-neck blouses are "slutty and lewd".... burka sales thisaway.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Preferential Voting gave Oakland Jean Quan as mayor(did not win the 1st place vote). She has been only a year and there is already a recall election to get her out.

And? She got elected because more people wanted her than not wanted her. The fact that she didn't deliver is not a problem of the voting process. The election is fair, that's all it can offer. You still have to choose your own candidates carefully.

Preferential Voting means no Spoilering. Let's say Ron Paul runs as an Independent; in the current US system he would steal votes from the Republicans and make Obama more likely to win. But in a Preferential system Republicans can safely vote Ron Paul first and Romney 2nd.