Elections in 2012

[Jerakeen]

Quote:

Did anyone else just see the story on Rachel Maddow about how Ron Paul is secretly winning all the caucuses (delegate-wise),even having lostthem (vote-wise)?

She often catches stuff that no-one else is reporting yet.

I guess the parties can pick their nominees any way they want to, but it does make the whole thing look like a farce.

[Slawbug]

Dantius: I believe it was partially in response to that.

[Randomizer]

It's happened before that delegates choose candidates that they want instead of those that they are supposed to represent. Usually it doesn't make a real difference by the time it reaches the convention.

 

Sometime it just becomes a protest vote on the first ballot to gain something else.

[Harehunter]

Here's a good question.

a) Would you rather delegates be chosen 'Winner takes all', or

would you prefer that they be proportional to the popular vote of the people?

 

This goes back to the old argument surrounding the electoral college. Do we

a) elect delegates from a state on a 'Winner takes all' basis

elect delegates on a proportional basis of the popular vote

c) do away with it altogether and go strictly on popular vote?

 

And one more thing; which is a better model for a society that promotes individual freedom of choice with regards to their government:

a) Pure democracy

a representative democracy

c) a republic (which is what the federal government is)

 

Any way you slice and dice these questions, there are pros and cons for each response.

 

With regard to the first question, I believe that that decision belongs to the citizens within each state.

 

With regard to the second, I would choose either a or b. Between those two choices, that again is the decision of the citizens of each state.

 

True democracy is an ideal that looks good, but it would require everyone to know everything about all the issues. It is too cumbersome. A representative democracy works well on the local level; city, county and state. We elect people to take on the job of governing for us, so we can pursue our own business.

 

Higher than state level, a republic is IMHO a good model. It should be responsible for and restricted to the tasks charged to it by the constitution; national defense and interactions between the states are two of the main tasks. It has also been charged with the responsibility to ensure that the rights of *all* individuals as stated in the Bill of Rights be protected. The 10th amendment was enacted with the intent to prevent the federal government from interfering in affairs that are best decided by the state and local governments.

 

e.g. While having a well educated population is desirable and vital to a democracy, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to control. Should a state be deficient in its policies toward providing that education, it will suffer the consequences of having a poorly educated populace. The only place I see for the federal government to step in is in the circumstance wherein discrimination against one group of people or another is in place. That is intolerable. But do we need a Department of Education for that? If a state or local government promotes discrimination with regard to education, that would be the job of the Department of Justice to prosecute. That's just my thoughts at this time. You are all free to disagree with me, and I invite your critiques (I can hear the steady trod of Slarty coming.)

[Randomizer]

The current system is because our Founding Fathers believed the voters were idiots. The voters would elect representatives that would be intelligent enough to pick a better person than by direct election.

 

In the past this has resulted in a few elections where the popular vote and electoral college have produced different results, but most of those were long before the modern era.

 

However the voters are still idiots. Poll results show most voters can't understand why some candidates were elected outside their voting district. However these same polls show that their bad candidates are acceptable. This is why voters hate our elected officials, but haven't removed almost all of them.

[Soul of Wit]

One comment on the caucuses and primaries. There are winner take all and proportional contests. There are also non-binding contests. Many of the caucuses fall into this category. That makes them little more than straw polls. The delegates can vote as they wish, come convention time.

 

Someone asked about Biden. Yes, Obama is staying with who brung him. I know that I'm mangling that, somehow. It's about dancing, correct?

 

If we want real excitement, the Republican convention will have to go to the back rooms and pick a dark horse candidate. I've heard Jeb Bush's name floated.

[Slawbug]

Yes, because nominating a rich, high-office-holder whose brother and father were already President definitely isn't playing right into Obama's class-inequality angle.

 

The only real hope for the Republicans is to hope the economy tanks. If the economy tanks very badly, any Republican could theoretically have a shot at winning. The economy doesn't look likely to tank before the election, but you never know.

[Alorael at Large]

Direct democracy is probably too labor-intensive to work. Politics are hard. Like it or not, it does require a professional political class. But what really makes the national level suddenly different from the state or local level? For national elections I'd rather have the same popular vote representative democracy.

 

Of course, I also don't take "the Constitution says so" as a good argument. If the Constitution enshrines important, valuable principles, good. But if it conflicts with good outcomes, there's no reason to take it as holy writ. In this case, I don't see an a priori reason that education should be a matter for states, not the federal government.

 

—Alorael, who also doesn't think "it'll all work itself out" works on the state scale. Because states are perfectly free to act against their own interests, and it's millions of actual human beings who suffer the consequences. Yes, maybe it's eventually self-correcting, but educational boom-bust cycles are an insane way of going about it.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Yes, because nominating a rich, high-office-holder whose brother and father were already President definitely isn't playing right into Obama's class-inequality angle.

The only real hope for the Republicans is to hope the economy tanks. If the economy tanks very badly, any Republican could theoretically have a shot at winning. The economy doesn't look likely to tank before the election, but you never know.

Well, I only said excitement. I didn't specify which party would be excited. As for your second paragraph, it's tough to disagree with that analysis.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

The current system is because our Founding Fathers believed the voters were idiots. The voters would elect representatives that would be intelligent enough to pick a better person than by direct election.
...
However the voters are still idiots. Poll results show most voters can't understand why some candidates were elected outside their voting district. However these same polls show that their bad candidates are acceptable. This is why voters hate our elected officials, but haven't removed almost all of them.

Your comment may seem simplistic on the surface, but there is more to it than that. To try to understand the reasoning behind the formation of a body of electors, now known as the Electoral College, I am often referred to the Federalist Papers, specifically #68.

One of the fears at that time was that some foreign power could influence or suborn the election of the person who would hold the highest office in the nation.

Another factor was that at the time of writing the Constitution, it was envisioned that the contests for the office of President would be between many candidates; there is a reference to the "candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes". They felt they would need a system to handle the circumstance, however unlikely, of a three way tie. They had no idea that a party system would evolve, and that would be reduced to a 2-party system.

And finally the founders of the Constitution were concerned that a popular vote could raise an irresponsible person to that office; Boris Yeltsin comes to mind. This was theoretically possible, to their way of thinking, if there were several possible candidates to the office. Randomizer, you hit this point straight on.

And now I think I will partake of a healthy serving of humble pie. No where can I find a reference to my earlier assertion that the apportionment of electors was based upon a concern for balancing the interest of the individual states, re North Dakota or Nevada. I need to attend to the wound in my foot.

[Jerakeen]

Okay everyone, put on your fuzzy slippers and make the popcorn. It's primary night in Arizona and Michigan.

 

For those who haven't been paying attention, Michigan is one of Romney's home states,his father was a popular governor there, he won it handily last time around, and there's a real chance he could lose it to Santorum this time.

 

If he does, he'll certainly blame it on democrats voting in the open primary.

[The Mystic]

No matter who loses, they'll blame the loss on Democrats voting on the Republican ticket. If I remember correctly, that's what happened last time, and there was some talk of requiring voters to prove they were card-carrying Republicans before being allowed to vote on the Republican ticket.

 

That said, I voted about 12-13 hours ago now, on the Republican ticket. How I voted and why will not be divulged; that's private information.

[Kelandon]

If Santorum ultimately wins the nomination, I will laugh. A lot.

[Jerakeen]

They just called it for Romney. No bahaha this time.

[Soul of Wit]

The delegates were pretty much evenly split between Romney and Santorum. That's pretty embarrassing for Romney, IMHO. There is still debate on the awarding of the last two delegates. Michigan has a weird primary. The delegates are awarded mostly by the results of each congressional district. It was even there. The last two delegates were supposed to have been awarded by either statewide proportional vote, or winner-take-all. It depends on which Republican is taliking. The MI GOP says 16-14 Romney. Other Republicans, including the Romney-supporting state atty. gen., say it should have been 15-15.

 

Michigan's primaries are also 100% open. You don't register with a party in Michigan. You have the freedom to show up and vote as you wish. I slapped down a vote for his truthiness, Dr. Paul. I don't have to worry about him being the GOP nominee.

[Jerakeen]

Santorum is now projected to win Tennessee, and is leading in Oklahoma. They called Georgia for Gingrich some time ago, which is not a surprise, since he was born there.

 

Ohio is pretty close atm, but it won't matter much.

 

I don't know about you folks, but I'm about ready for Santorum to go away. The damage has been done; it's hard to see how he could make it any worse. All he's doing now is stirring up ugliness.

[Actaeon]

Virginia and Vermont have the most precincts reporting, and they're both leaning Romney. I think we might see at least one of the four drop after this. Even if they don't, I'm loathe to pay any more attention until the RNC.

[The Ratt]

I really hope Ron Paul runs as a third party so whoever wins the republican nomination has even less of a chance of actually becoming president. Particularly if Santorum wins.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

I really hope Ron Paul runs as a third party so whoever wins the republican nomination has even less of a chance of actually becoming president. Particularly if Santorum wins.

I don't think the republicans really have a chance. I mean it seems like Obama is the only person actually trying to get something done in DC, not to mention the republicans are still fighting each other over the nomination. They don't seem to have been spending much time slinging mud at the President, they've just been whining with each other about the proper way to undo everything that has happened in the last four years.

Call me out if I'm wrong, I honestly glaze over everytime I hear "nomination" in the news; I already know who I am voting for :|

[Actaeon]

I can't say if you're wrong or not, but you're certainly not alone.

 

(Unless Jon Stewart runs. Then all bets are off.)

[Randomizer]

It looks like Romney will lead in votes for the nomination, but it may drag out to the convention before he has enough. Whatever happens, the Republicans will probably be divided come the election. Whenever there is a strong division within the party there is usually a loss.

 

So it comes down to how much the economy recovers so voters will feel good about keeping Obama.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

So it comes down to how much the economy recovers so voters will feel good about keeping Obama.

The economy's recovering? You could've fooled me; most days I swear it's still going the other way....

[Kelandon]

The recovery is just painfully slow and not happening for everyone at once. And there's still the foreclosure crisis.

 

But unemployment is down (even if still too high), and growth continues, albeit slowly.

[keira]

You aren't going to see results overnight, you can't just wake up one day and say oh hey look the economy of the world's biggest country is fixed. It takes time and a lot of people enjoy being critical because they think being president gives you magical superpowers or something. Which would be totally sweet, but that is not the case.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Sylae

...a lot of people enjoy being critical because they think being president gives you magical superpowers or something.

Uh-huh...

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

The recovery is just painfully slow and not happening for everyone at once.
...

But unemployment is down (even if still too high), and growth continues, albeit slowly.

Well, let's just say I'll believe it when I see it, and leave it at that. All I know is I'm making about two-thirds less than what I was a decade ago, and with about one-quarter more effort; and if I weren't still living at home (at no time could I afford to move out, btw), I'd be on the street.

Originally Posted By: Sylae

You aren't going to see results overnight, you can't just wake up one day and say oh hey look the economy of the world's biggest country is fixed.

Yeah, overnight results would be nice, but only a fool can believe such a thing is possible (and believe me, I know a lot of fools--not here, of course). It's just that it would be nice to get out of the twelve-plus-year "recession" I've been subjected to here in the U.S. Pardon me for being bitter, but I have a right to it after three presidential terms filled with the same old rhetoric and little to no visible action.

[keira]

That might've been slightly sarcastic, but you know what I mean. Obama has had to deal with this economic disaster, crazy crap going on abroad, the congress from hell, and all these other things. It's a miracle he's been able to do anything.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

The recovery is just painfully slow and not happening for everyone at once. And there's still the foreclosure crisis.

But unemployment is down (even if still too high), and growth continues, albeit slowly.

The unfortunate fact about unemployment going down is that it is likely to cause unemployment to increase again, if only in the short term (which would still be enough to hurt Obama quite badly). The perception that there are more jobs in the economy may cause people who have given up the job search to get back in there again and start looking. Since the statistics only count people who are looking for a job as unemployed (so as not to count retirees, full-time students, etc.) this means that the rate might get artificially increased.

[Callie]

Obama had a significant democratic majority in both houses of congress at one point. There was some significant division in his own party when it came to certain legislation, but many presidents have had to work with a lot less. I don't personally place emphasis on what's generally referred to as "leadership skills," but I'd imagine that if I was a Democrat I'd be somewhat disappointed.

 

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Yeah, overnight results would be nice, but only a fool can believe such a thing is possible (and believe me, I know a lot of fools--not here, of course). It's just that it would be nice to get out of the twelve-plus-year "recession" I've been subjected to here in the U.S. Pardon me for being bitter, but I have a right to it after three presidential terms filled with the same old rhetoric and little to no visible action.

It's not practical to make economic observations based on anecdotal evidence, because said observations really need to take the whole population into account in order to be accurate. No government can equally satisfy all of its citizens, and accordingly, no government can reasonably ensure increased prosperity for every single one of its citizens during his or her lifespan. I agree that the current administration has had little practical difference from the previous one, but that's not an opinion based on my own experiences (to be fair I was only eight years old at the beginning of the Bush administration).

[Alorael at Large]

The Democrats controlled both houses, but they also seemed to lake unity and gumption and let the Republicans still call a lot of shots. Sure, if Obama were an electrifying leader who forced his agenda through the pipeline more would have gotten done, and I think I would have liked most of it, but Obama wasn't the proximate cause of things not getting done even then.

 

—Alorael, who also has trouble swallowing the idea that the Bush and Obama administrations' financial policies are so similar. Bush presided over a fairly strong economy, except for the small recession at the beginning of his term and the global financial crisis at the end. Obama has been grappling with the crisis all along, trying to rein in war spending, and facing complete deadlock on budgetary problems. The Bush years were years of bad finances; Obama followed a few years largely of inaction with years of being stymied.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

It's just that it would be nice to get out of the twelve-plus-year "recession" I've been subjected to here in the U.S. Pardon me for being bitter, but I have a right to it after three presidential terms filled with the same old rhetoric and little to no visible action.

I'm curious as to where you live in the United States. We've pretty much had a 11-year recession in Michigan, but I wasn't aware that was true in other states. The middle class is getting beat up. Not only are unemployment numbers misleading, but they also ignore underemployment. There is no doubt that disposable income is on a downward trend. Healthcare and oil are huge inflation drivers. Regulating the financial industry is about the only way to control oil speculation and reduce gasoline prices. You won't see too many of our elected representatives jumping up to be the first to endorse regulation, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, the Republican candidates seem to think that we can drill our way out of high oil prices. They seem to ignore facts like: foreign dependence continues to trend downward, oil production is up, and oil demand is down. The idea that computer-based oil trading and rampant speculation are the real price drivers is far from the discussion.

[Callie]

He also lives in Michigan, IIRC.

 

Originally Posted By: Alorael

—Alorael, who also has trouble swallowing the idea that the Bush and Obama administrations' financial policies are so similar. Bush presided over a fairly strong economy, except for the small recession at the beginning of his term and the global financial crisis at the end. Obama has been grappling with the crisis all along, trying to rein in war spending, and facing complete deadlock on budgetary problems. The Bush years were years of bad finances; Obama followed a few years largely of inaction with years of being stymied.

To most people, no, to issues I care most about, yes. My economic views are very right-wing--mostly laissez-faire, so in my eyes both administrations advanced a corporatist policy combined with an excessive regulatory climate and inflation, all the while accruing massive amounts of debt. This applies to other aspects as well: their foreign policies might as well be identical, they both support the drug war, they both favor large-scale deportations of immigrants, they both allow civil rights violations (no judicial process, support of DOMA, etc.), they both abuse executive power, and they're both altogether statist.

 

Edit: Oh, and the whole faith-based initiative stuff.

[Actaeon]

I visited my grandparents in Windsor a couple years ago, and flew into Detroit. I don't know of anywhere in Colorado that's doing that poorly. The construction and associated trades are all hurting, of course, but they're springing back some (to the distress of the environmental community).

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

It's not practical to make economic observations based on anecdotal evidence, because said observations really need to take the whole population into account in order to be accurate. No government can equally satisfy all of its citizens, and accordingly, no government can reasonably ensure increased prosperity for every single one of its citizens during his or her lifespan. I agree that the current administration has had little practical difference from the previous one, but that's not an opinion based on my own experiences (to be fair I was only eight years old at the beginning of the Bush administration).

I wasn't going off of anecdotes about the economy, but my own experiences in it. Give yourself another decade, and you might understand my POV a little better (just for age reference, when I was eight years old, Reagan was finishing his fifth year as president).

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

He also lives in Michigan, IIRC.

Yep, about a half-hour drive north of Detroit.

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

I visited my grandparents in Windsor a couple years ago, and flew into Detroit. I don't know of anywhere in Colorado that's doing that poorly.

Count your blessings. I took a vacation back in April 2010, and got funny looks when I mentioned how bad the economy was until I said I was from Michigan.

[Slawbug]

An anecdote is information based on either one data point or a small collection of data points. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at somebody else's experiences, or your own; it's still an anecdote.

[Actaeon]

I would assert that it's impractical to talk about the economy WITHOUT at least some anecdotal evidence. Statistics are abstract; experience is concrete. Certainly, nationwide trends are important, but to most people, things are as good as they seem to be. It's about how hard it is to find a job, and how far your paycheck goes if you have one.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

I would assert that it's impractical to talk about the economy WITHOUT at least some anecdotal evidence. Statistics are abstract; experience is concrete. Certainly, nationwide trends are important, but to most people, things are as good as they seem to be. It's about how hard it is to find a job, and how far your paycheck goes if you have one.

That can still be measured. If you can find an appropriate sample that's representative of the whole population then it ceases to be anecdotal and is instead a statistic.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

I would assert that it's impractical to talk about the economy WITHOUT at least some anecdotal evidence. Statistics are abstract; experience is concrete. Certainly, nationwide trends are important, but to most people, things are as good as they seem to be. It's about how hard it is to find a job, and how far your paycheck goes if you have one.

So, because "most people" look at things from the perspective of our daily life, we should avoid using broader and more objective perspectives? I'm sort of stunned.

[Alorael at Large]

More importantly, how do you look at things from the perspective of three hundred million people? That's the sort of question that the field of statistics was founded to address. Yes, you need anecdotal evidence to sell a plan of action, because politics runs on heartstrings plucked. But good statistics are the aggregate of all those anecdotes.

 

—Alorael, who spent much of yesterday quantifying the value of human life, and deciding how much a life is worth after various forms of mangling, maiming, and mutilating. He won't say statistics are easy, or nice. But they are far better than anecdotes if you ever want to get anything done.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Mantle of Egregious Might

—Alorael, who spent much of yesterday quantifying the value of human life, and deciding how much a life is worth after various forms of mangling, maiming, and mutilating. He won't say statistics are easy, or nice. But they are far better than anecdotes if you ever want to get anything done.

Was this a theoretical calculation or experimental and only applies to your neighborhood?

[keira]

It only applies to anyone who asks too many questions

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

So, because "most people" look at things from the perspective of our daily life, we should avoid using broader and more objective perspectives? I'm sort of stunned.

No. I think you need both. Objective perspectives are, on the whole, preferable. But to ignore the small scale manifestations of the national economy is, in my unschooled opinion, extreme.

(Politicians and reporters do this all the time... couple an anecdote with your data and people relate to it better.)

[Slawbug]

Most politicians and many reporters tend to replace the data with an anecdote.

 

I would agree that paying attention to small scale manifestations makes sense. The problem is that arbitrarily picking one small scale manifestation might give you something really, really unrepresentative, and hence misleading. If you look at the overall picture first and then pick small scale manifestations that make the details and dimensions of the overall picture more clear, that's great. But picking them arbitrarily -- and that includes because they happened to you or to your friends -- and expecting them to provide meaningful data about the overall picture, well, it doesn't work like that.

[Alorael at Large]

Objective perspectives are necessary because it's human nature, i.e. human psychology, to give weight to anecdotes. We are built for human interest stories, but those don't lead to good, rational, data-driven decisions.

 

—Alorael, who agrees that anecdotes have a place. That place is not the same place as statistical evidence: the latter gives what to do, and the former provides the psychological push to make it happen.

[Kelandon]

Anecdotes help people understand abstractions. I can articulate a trend in flat wages, unemployment, home foreclosures, consumer debt, and robo-signing without getting how all those pieces fit together. But if I hear a story about someone whose bills mounted up until he couldn't pay them without credit card debt and then lost his job with no savings cushion, leading to an overly-rapid foreclosure that didn't follow the law, I can understand the human impact of these trends in the data. It's one thing to know that high unemployment is bad; it's kind of another to understand why it's bad, and how it interacts with other indicators.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

I would agree that paying attention to small scale manifestations makes sense. The problem is that arbitrarily picking one small scale manifestation might give you something really, really unrepresentative, and hence misleading. If you look at the overall picture first and then pick small scale manifestations that make the details and dimensions of the overall picture more clear, that's great. But picking them arbitrarily -- and that includes because they happened to you or to your friends -- and expecting them to provide meaningful data about the overall picture, well, it doesn't work like that.

While a small sample size consistently makes unbiased representations of the population impossible to attain, I am not sure that that's what's going on here. The Mystic hasn't said that because of personal economic plights the entire economy is down; rather, that because of those personal economic plights, the economic policies of Obama and Bush haven't helped out. I don't see how voters acting in their own best interest - which this is an example of - would be an irrational reason to dislike a candidate's platform.

Moreover, don't use a lack of the correct type of "knowledge" as a reason for excluding someone from a political discussion. The point and position are as relevant and legitimate as any other.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

To most people, no, to issues I care most about, yes. My economic views are very right-wing--mostly laissez-faire, so in my eyes both administrations advanced a corporatist policy combined with an excessive regulatory climate and inflation, all the while accruing massive amounts of debt. This applies to other aspects as well: their foreign policies might as well be identical, they both support the drug war, they both favor large-scale deportations of immigrants, they both allow civil rights violations (no judicial process, support of DOMA, etc.), they both abuse executive power, and they're both altogether statist.

Edit: Oh, and the whole faith-based initiative stuff.

It's hard to disagree with most of this. I take exception to anyone suggesting that the foreign policies of the current and prior Presidents are similar. [urinating] away the global goodwill engendered by 9/11 was a colossal failure on W's part. I can't fathom any President but W invading Iraq. History shows us that Democrats are often warmongers, but they don't have a habit of initiating wars while cutting taxes. That was fiscal suicide. I'll emphasize that failing to let tax breaks lapse is not the political equivalent of lowering taxes in the first place.

Other differences between the two are too subtle to perhaps be indicative of significant differences. Obama has shown a willingness to cut our excessive defense spending and to rein in absurd tax subsidies. Saying and doing are not synonymous, but I have reasonable optimism on those issues. Obama is trending in the correct direction on LGBT rights. True, this is a matter of following public opinion and not of leadership. Still, I'll take bona fide representation over kowtowing to the extremists of either party, any day.

[Callie]

That's all folks.

[The Ratt]

So now it's Romney, Paul, and Gingrich. I think it says something about Gingrich that he is still in the race. The longer he stays in the more votes he's taking away from Romney and the more likely Obama will win, which unless Gingrich has a hidden agenda, is probably something he does not want. He's just too focused on himself to see the big picture.

[Actaeon]

I think most Gingrich supporters (who are generally more conservative than the party as a whole) will back Romney when the real election rolls around. At this point, the damage has been done.

 

That's not to say that Newt isn't a megalomaniac.