Same question I had four years ago.

Again in politics, "Perception is reality" is a hard issue to fathom. Being from NY and thier 'radical' leftists, and seeing the attmpts here now in Nebraska at 'radical' leftists, the comic nature of the difference is my entertainment.

The people who lump all Republicans into the 'radical' mold because it fits thier bias is what I am getting at, it is thier 'perception' of the Republicans as a whole, rather than a true representation across the entire spectrum.

It seriously kind of scares me that people think Mitt Romney is too far left. I hate to see what they think of next if they feel they need to go more right wing. I know that's an outsider perspective, but a candidate that insanely conservative would be (hopefully) laughed out of Canada.

Why doesn't the US just go with the popular vote? Why this point/state system?

KBK

I can sort of see the point in what you are saying, but the number of people voting for a person will not change.

People still vote for their parties. I doubt it would make much of a difference. What's the popular vote looking like at the moment? Still a win for Obama?

KBK

oldsoldier wrote: Even though the electoral college system is weighted, if we went popular vote the 6 most populated States would pick the President and the smaller States would have no real say but have to submit to the 6 most populated. Our system was designed where the States had 'equal' say in our government, bastardized in 1863, but still needed.

Not to repasta a Facebook status, but a friend of mine put this up; couldn't agree more.

He's saying they can't win a general election since they've had to salt the earth in order to get the GOP to nominate them by at the very least, flip-flopping from a previously moderate stance to get the GOP to nominate them. See McCain on immigration, and Romney on abortion and healthcare. Maybe the lesson here is for moderate GOP hopefuls to just say "Abortion is none of my business and a not anywhere near the most important issue" or "If you really think deporting 12 million people and all that entails, or continuing to ignore the situation is acceptable, you're smoking crack" and somehow manage to win. But every time they seem to back off. 

usafpilot07 wrote: Yeah, and maybe the left/the media can not categorize a stance against employer bought birth control as a war on women.

If you're going to accept the premise that employers and insurers can be forced to provide coverage, fine. We had the insurance mandate debate already. Denying birth control coverage was seen by religious employers as a chance to take a stance against immorality as defined by that religion. Mainly, the whole "casting your seed upon the ground...blah blah blah, death by stoning" "if a woman has premarital sex or is raped, she needs to get married to whomever impregnated her or she shall be put to death for prostitution" stuff. Regardless of how each religion has rationalized those beliefs to make them sound less horrible and stone age, it boils down to wanting to either get off slightly cheaper, or saying employers should not cover any medical condition caused by perceived immorality. Rush Limbaugh went as far as to call Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute over this, setting off the news blitz. The Catholic church told Obama to go fornicate himself when he tried to compromise and say insurers should pay for it, by reason that if they paid insurers and insurers paid for contraception, they were still being forced to pay for it. That tactic either takes us back to debating the mandate, or opting for religious or belief-based exemption for any condition you want. Don't believe in smoking? Don't cover lung-cancer treatments. Don't believe in premarital sex? Don't cover anti-biotics, Valtrex, or pre-natal care for unwed mothers, liver trouble for drinkers, psych meds for scientologists, or medical care at all if you're a christian-scientist. Again, back to debating the mandate, which the US supreme court upheld. 

rednekk98 wrote: I challenge you to draw the line on those exemptions. Either argue the mandate (the court already decided) or call your employees who want to control when they have kids, as well as other conditions hormonal contraception helps, sluts. I'd call it a war against free will, not a war on women. I kind of like not having surprise children.

mbro wrote: rednekk98 wrote: I wondered if the framers had any idea how unlikely it would be for no candidate to get a majority in the electoral college (which kicks it to the house, 1-state, 1-vote. If it kicks to the house every state gets their electoral college vote minus 2. I'm not sure where you assumed that each state has one congressman from.

 

Edited by rednekk98 - 09 November 2012 at 6:55pm