Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  but then my misanthropic side says we should do just about anything to keep power out of the hands of the slack-jawed masses and let technocrats handle the business of the country ... but that's clearly just a knee-jerk reaction to the teeming hordes of obese jean-shorted tourists i see around all the time

this makes me a whig, right?

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
   

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  using your logic that DC is less important than CA because it's smaller and less populated

that is not "my logic"
 
   

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  And why should DC be less important than CA just because it's smaller and less populated?

DC is in a unique situation, so essentially you're comparing apples to oranges ... substitute for DC a small state like Delaware and you have one of the essential issues confronting our founders while drafting the Constitution ...
 
 their solution was to create a bicameral legislative system whereby one branch, the Senate, had a fixed and equal number of representatives from each state (ensuring that residents of small states would have a voice) and the other branch, the House, had its number of representatives from each state determined proportionately by the population of each state (a more pure representative democracy) [/b]

Again, I don't need a lecture on American Government, but thank you.
 
 We are discussing the presidential election, not the house or senate....and why don't counties within states have mini-electoral colleges to select reps and senators if it's such a democratic system?

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  We are discussing the presidential election, not the house or senate....

it's all linked together with the concept of federalism and the power of individual states in our national government
 
 

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  and why don't counties within states have mini-electoral colleges to select reps and senators if it's such a democratic system?

i won't lecture you with the history of the electoral college, but venerable referred to why the system remains the same today ... it's simply easier in a presidential vote for democrats and republicans to separate states into 3 categories: red, blue, and swing ... they don't have to campaign or spend money in states they have sewn up
 
 cynical?  sure, but that's why it stays the way it does

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
 

... it's simply easier in a presidential vote for democrats and republicans to separate states into 3 categories: red, blue, and swing ... they don't have to campaign or spend money in states they have sewn up
 
 cynical?  sure, but that's why it stays the way it does [/b]

So some states are less important than others....hmmmmmm not very democratic if you ask me. A simple popular vote would make more sense to me...but who am I if not a dumb immigrant.

[Brian_Wallace]

I agree Brain Walrus.  I think all the time he's been getting at the fact that the Electoral College is unfair and a popular vote is the fairest way to elect a president.  All the rest was semantics.
 
 I think the interesting thing about Kucinich and Paul is that supposedly being at the far left and far right of the politcal spectrums, they are very similar in the their viewpoints.
 
 Brian

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
   

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
 

... it's simply easier in a presidential vote for democrats and republicans to separate states into 3 categories: red, blue, and swing ... they don't have to campaign or spend money in states they have sewn up
 
 cynical?  sure, but that's why it stays the way it does [/b]

So some states are less important than others....hmmmmmm not very democratic if you ask me. A simple popular vote would make more sense to me...but who am I if not a dumb immigrant. [/b]

but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states?  how is that fair to smaller and less populous states?  again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states?  how is that fair to smaller and less populous states?  again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

a very good point, but in a pure national popular vote count, the entire presidential campaign would be focused not just on the populous states, but on big urban media markets where candidates could reach the sheer largest number of voters ... rural/small city people would be shut out of the process and it would effectively kill any last semblance of retail presidential politics that we have in this country
 
 not that i'm arguing for the electoral college, just showing the necessary implications of changing the system

[Brian_Wallace]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  not that i'm arguing for the electoral college, just showing the necessary implications of changing the system

I think we should abolish the electoral college.  Hey, if a candidate only campaigns in California, Texas, Florida and the northeast and wins, then fine.  If he/she gets more votes than the other guy/woman, then he/she should win.  That's the way  majority works.  I don't think a candidate would ever be stupid enough to do that considering the backlash, but if more people vote for him/her, than that's the way it is.
 
 Brian

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
   Hey, if a candidate only campaigns in California, Texas, Florida and the northeast and wins, then fine.  If he/she gets more votes than the other guy/woman, then he/she should win.  That's the way  majority works.  I don't think a candidate would ever be stupid enough to do that considering the backlash, but if more people vote for him/her, than that's the way it is.

That is almost exactly what Guiliani is doing in his attempt to secure the Republican nomination.  If he wins, I doubt he faces much backlash, save for the far right in evangelical states, most of which he's completely ignoring.

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states?  how is that fair to smaller and less populous states?  again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

a very good point, but in a pure national popular vote count, the entire presidential campaign would be focused not just on the populous states, but on big urban media markets where candidates could reach the sheer largest number of voters ... rural/small city people would be shut out of the process and it would effectively kill any last semblance of retail presidential politics that we have in this country
 
 not that i'm arguing for the electoral college, just showing the necessary implications of changing the system [/b]

I think if every citizens vote was as important as the next guy/gal...there would be a whole different method of campaigning, which still wouldn't be perfect, but still more equitable than it currently is.
 
 BTW - I was a total cynic on polls, believing that they never happened because I have never met anyone who was polled (sp?) and was under the impression the left/right swinging media made them up for their own agendas HOWEVER!!! I got polled yesterday. It was a very weird poll though because it was asking if the election was today would I vote for Clinton or Thompson??? Like Thompson is going to be the rep candidate   :roll:   .....so, even though they do actually poll people, the still do it in a way that benefits their own agenda....

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  I was a total cynic on polls, believing that they never happened because I have never met anyone who was polled (sp?) and was under the impression the left/right swinging media made them up for their own agendas

you seem like a real reasonable fella ... do you think the moon landing was staged?

[Brian_Wallace]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  BTW - I was a total cynic on polls, believing that they never happened because I have never met anyone who was polled (sp?) and was under the impression the left/right swinging media made them up for their own agendas HOWEVER!!! I got polled yesterday. It was a very weird poll though because it was asking if the election was today would I vote for Clinton or Thompson??? Like Thompson is going to be the rep candidate    :roll:    .....so, even though they do actually poll people, the still do it in a way that benefits their own agenda....

Was it a phone poll?  Maybe it was a push poll.  Was the question phrased like "Mitt Romney worships the devil and has nine wives.  Are you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him or the same?"
 
 Actually, I was never polled before, because hey, I'm hetero, but seriously, last election I was polled by some cute young thing from the LA Times.  I tried to pick her up but my best Quagmire lines weren't working.
 
 Brian
 
 P.S.  Speaking of things you don't believe in... Does anyone here know a Nielsen family.  Viewership for every television program is computed by a survey and I've never known ANY Nielsen family whose tv habits are tallied.  I think the "ratings" you get for TV programs are highly biased.

[nkotb]

I don't know any Nielsen families, but about 10 years ago, I was contacted about previewing a brand new sitcom that hadn't yet been aired.  The tape arrived, and the instructions indicated that the tape would erase itself as it played.  Thinking I was smart, I set up 2 TV's to tape it, you know, just to buck the system.
 
 The shitty sitcom was called Dads, and it started C. Thomas Howell as, surprise, a dad.  It also had Rue McClanahan as a German day-care instructor, and that woman that played the bitch on Herman's Head.  When I got done viewing, I had to take a little opinion poll; it turned out all they cared about were the commercials shown.  I felt duped.
 
 Oddly enough, Dads became a running joke with my friends, and when I was contacted out of the blue again to view a sitcom, I hoped for something equally lame.  Turned out to be the same episode of Dads    
 
 

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
 P.S.  Speaking of things you don't believe in... Does anyone here know a Nielsen family.  Viewership for every television program is computed by a survey and I've never known ANY Nielsen family whose tv habits are tallied.  I think the "ratings" you get for TV programs are highly biased.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

<img src="http://www.gibson.com/whatsnew/pressrelease/2002/IMG/vault.jpg" alt=" - " />

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
   

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
  I was a total cynic on polls, believing that they never happened because I have never met anyone who was polled (sp?) and was under the impression the left/right swinging media made them up for their own agendas

you seem like a real reasonable fella ... do you think the moon landing was staged? [/b]

Dunno....wasn't there. Although it's weird the flags were flapping in the wind when there's no fucking wind on the moon!!! And the shadows from the stage lights are a bit weird too...