Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, that's what happens when the average Joe illegally records what seems to have been a private conversation. At least he seems to not be getting sued.
Hey, as a matter of curiosity, what do you guys think it would take for getting rid of the Electoral College in the national voting process? It's just something I've been thinking about lately. I don't think it's going to be a huge priority any time soon, but that's mostly because I don't think people really know how it works, even when they're concerned about voting rights. (Most of that energy is obviously going towards the obstructive ID laws right now.)
Well, I mean more along the lines for getting that to be a priority. There's a bajillion other things right in front of it that alarm people a whole lot more. Also, constitutional conventions have small chances of happening now. (I won't say impossible, but it would take years to wrangle that sort of thing out of the states as they currently are.)
But if it became a priority with the people/representatives, it could go through Congress like everything else.
If we're doing any voting reform, I think it should be a priority to implement approval voting
. The current system is mathematically ridiculous. As it is, two similar candidates can't run without "stealing votes" from each other and ruining both their chances. It's hard to think of a worse way to count votes. The inevitable result is the two-party deadlock dominated by negative campaigning.
Mixed-member proportional representation
seems like an interesting solution to gerrymandering, too.
edited 2nd Jun '13 11:21:16 PM by Topazan
I just don't see it happening. Ever.
Unless we repeat the '2000 election incident' like a dozen times consecutively, I don't think many people are ever going to care enough to make eliminating the electoral system an important priority.
This system survived 200+ years; I don't see why it won't last 200 more.
EDIT: To put it in context; this system has survived 4 failures, a Civil War, the end of Slavery, a Great Depression, and the collapse of several political parties.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:31:37 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
It's been around that long, but it hasn't always worked the same way.
In theory, each state is free to decide how it chooses its electors. For instance, if a major state like California or Texas decided to assign their electoral votes proportionately, they could. That might not be the change Ace is looking for, but it would be a start.
Well there are a number of states that have signed up to a national popular vote idea. States are free to pick their own their elector-choosing processes, but there's nothing saying that they can't choose to assign their electors to support the candidate who wins the national popular vote if and only if total number of electors from those states that support this plan total a majority in the electoral college.
There aren't yet enough states supporting this idea for them to together have a majority in the EC yet though.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:31:30 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
4 times the amount of average Americans, but I am inclined to say that there are good reasons for that.
Putting in a mandatory retirement age would be a good idea.
Also, is it right that they won't have a special election there? Lautenberg's seat is up again in 2014, in short time.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe people in my class think the welfare system encourages people to live off it rather than encouraging them to get a job. From what I've heard online, it's harder these days to get a job than it should be, especially for the unemployed. And of course there's the shame of living off welfare. Thoughts?
Xopher: Point out to your classmates that the unemployment/underemployment rate among college grads in the U.S. is huge. Ask how people are supposed to get jobs when there are hundreds of applicants for every position. Ask them if they've met any of these supposed lazy moochers.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The "people in class" are completely correct when it comes to certain aspects of how it is handled. There are parents out there that depend on Social Security checks they receive because of their income level and their kids being "disabled". And part of the application process for the kids is their—presumably low because of their disability—grades. Not only does the government assistance disappear at an arbitrary income (so the person is encouraged to earn just under that amount) but the kids are encouraged to not get good grades because then the family loses those checks with no decrease in expenses.
edited 3rd Jun '13 7:45:57 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!What we need is to cut out all the conditions for getting welfare and the vast web of different programs, and turn it into a "minimum guaranteed income" program.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
Before the west coast was counted the Repubs had more of the popular vote. As that was when the election was called, that's the stat that they tend to remember even though the final vote tally was strongly in the Democrats' favour.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick