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
He is, perhaps, not at all wowed by any of them. With as many as there are it's a bit difficult to for anyone that isn't Trump to stand out. Although I'm watching the news now and it seems like Jeb actually took an effective shot or two at Trump.
Man, remember when we thought it was going to be a weird dynastic fight between Clinton and Bush? Instead of this outlandish repeat and escalation of last time's Republican candidacy? I'm starting to wonder if this is going to be the start of a new pattern with the Republicans.
Also, voting does indeed matter. If it didn't matter there wouldn't be such a strong push to restrict voting rights. I have stated before that I think the Electoral College is outdated, but I don't think it's on anyone's major radar as a thing that needs to be reformed. If it's on anyone's radar at all.
I'm going to vote for whoever I eventually find "least bad." Unfortunately, right now Trump is pretty much drowning everyone else out. Once he implodes I'm hoping I can take a better look at the candidates who are left.
My state's primary is still six months away. Most of the people on the stage last night will be out by the time I get to vote.
And those of us who live in the less populated states are quite happy with the Electoral College the way it is, thank you. If it didn't exist we wouldn't get any "face time" with the candidates at all.
![]()
![]()
And that's why the RNC is terrified about Cruz or Trump winning the nomination; because those are exactly the types of states they A) can't win and B) are likely to hurt the party in already close races for Senator/Governor.
edited 16th Dec '15 2:38:29 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
An example:
Wyoming has a population of 584,153 and 3 electoral votes, which works out to 1 electoral vote per 194,717 electors. California has a population of 38,800,000 and 55 electoral votes, which works out to 1 electoral vote per 704,455 electors.
edited 16th Dec '15 3:25:24 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIf the Presidential election were decided directly by the popular vote then a candidate would only have to get a majority of the voters in the nation as a whole. He would spend all of his time in the most populated states trying to maximize the influence of his limited resources, and could ignore some of the the less populated states completely, because they don't have enough votes to overturn a majority in the more heavily populated states.
Because the electoral college is "all or nothing" in most states and each state has at least 3 votes regardless of population, a successful candidate has to get votes in more total states to win than he would if it were a strict majority vote. Therefore under the electoral college a successful candidate has to pay more attention to more states and spread his resources more.
The Electoral College does exactly what it is designed to do - reduce the influence of the more heavily-populated states on a Presidential election and thereby increase the influence of the less-populated states.
![]()
It's never had a discernible impact on the outcome of the election though.
edited 16th Dec '15 3:31:00 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
I guess you could call it that. It doesn't really amount to much considering both Maine and Nebraska both go pretty solidly go Democrat or Republican in presidential elections. 2008 being a very notable exception that was not repeated in 2012.
Edit: I remember it was a big thing for a bit for Republicans in swing states to propose this system to make sure a Republican nominee can get at least some votes out of state that isn't guaranteed to go their way. That might still be a thing some of them are trying, I haven't heard about it in awhile.
edited 16th Dec '15 3:44:39 PM by LSBK

@Bense - But Cruz and Carson are okay to you?