Presidential Race

[SVXMAN2001]

As for voting for a third party candidate, I DO understand your logic. However I respectfully disagree. The bottom line is many people think that the person they are voting for will make a change. It's not the President that runs the country, it's congress (lobbyists to a great extent as well). Obama ran on his promise of change and forward thinking and look where we are. We've changed for the worse. I am a federal employee and as some may know Obama has placed the majority on a pay freeze, all the while practically everything has increased in price.

Now we have Romney promising a different type of change and direction. What makes his claims any more meaningful than Obama's? I don't agree with his entire policy. However I do agree with his fiscal conservatism by trimming the fat off the enormous government bureaucracy and wasted departments. Obama created jobs simply by using our tax dollars to employ people for useless government agencies.

I take a much more cynical view of this election than some. I don't like politics and believe politicians are nothing but hypocritical and self interested. Voting for a third party does elicit more hope I suppose, but in the end they will encounter the same bureaucratic gridlock that all everyone else has. And ultimately their campaign will have been funded by some influential lobbyist who they'll have to repay in some form or another.

[SVXMAN2001]

As for voting for a third party candidate, I DO understand your logic. However I respectfully disagree. The bottom line is many people think that the person they are voting for will make a change. It's not the President that runs the country, it's congress (lobbyists to a great extent as well). Obama ran on his promise of change and forward thinking and look where we are. We've changed for the worse. I am a federal employee and as some may know Obama has placed the majority on a pay freeze, all the while practically everything has increased in price.

Now we have Romney promising a different type of change and direction. What makes his claims any more meaningful than Obama's. I don't agree with his entire policy. However I do agree with his fiscal conservatism by trimming the fat off the enormous government bureaucracy and wasted departments. Obama created jobs simply by using our tax dollars to employee people for useless government agencies.

I take a much more cynical view of this election than some. I don't like politics and believe politicians are nothing but hypocritical and self interested. Voting for a third party does elicit more hope I suppose, but in the end they will encounter the same beauracratic gridlock that all everyone else has. And ultimately their campaign will have been funded by some influential lobbyist who they'll have to repay in some form or another.

[LetItSnow]

As the most biased state in the union, I wonder how much money New York could save by just bypassing all of the cost of taking and tallying votes, and simply pitching in to Obama's stack in the Electoral College?

Call it defeatist, but foregone conclusion is a foregone conclusion.

[icingdeath88]

I still have yet to have anyone adequately explain to me why we have not switched to a popular vote yet.

[Huskymaniac]

Originally Posted by icingdeath88

I still have yet to have anyone adequately explain to me why we have not switched to a popular vote yet.

I'll give that a try!

The electoral college comes out of the same philosophy that lead to congress having two parts. One part has representatives from roughly equally populated regions. As such, states with higher populations have more representative in the house. The other part has equal representation from each state (2), regardless of population. The idea is to preserve the interests of each state while still trying to serve the popular interests as well. Less populated states could have interests that differ from populus states and the lack of the Senate, as constructed, would mean that their interests are never served.

The electoral college mirrors, somewhat, this balanced view. Each state gets a number of electors based on the total number of Senators (2) and representatives.

If you want to abolish the electoral college, I think you would also have to eliminate the Senate, to be consistent. What can be done, as a middle ground, is to change how the electoral votes are assigned. What may make more sense is for 2 electoral votes to be based on who wins a given state and then the rest of the electoral votes be split based on the popular vote within the same state. Or, the rest of the electoral votes could be determined on a congressional district by district basis. In other words, each congressional district gets one electoral vote and that vote goes to the popular vote winner of the district.

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by Huskymaniac

The idea is to preserve the interests of each state...

This is where things become complicated in NY - New York City south of Westchester is a different world in too many ways to fairly be attached to everything north of that area. In the 2008 election, the difference between red and blue votes cast upstate was 20,000 - a surmountable number. This was tremendously squelched, however, by the large number of voters in the New York City area, 2/3 of whom voted Democrat, leaving upstate along for the ride.

The last polls I read showed New York as a whole leaning 61-63% toward Democrat votes. In order to make New York a swing state, the entirety of upstate would have to vote Republican.

The Electoral College carries no concern for the interests of upstate New York, save that its residents can stay home on Election Day, as their ballots are inconsequential.

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by icingdeath88

I still have yet to have anyone adequately explain to me why we have not switched to a popular vote yet.

Besides what has already been written, our founding fathers created a republic, Not a true democracy as they knew that if it was by popular vote only then the election would end up going to the guy that promised to give to the people, and as the saying goes once the masses figured out how to vote themselves largess from the treasury the decline of the democracy is not far behind.

[Huskymaniac]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

This is where things become complicated in NY - New York City south of Westchester is a different world in too many ways to fairly be attached to everything north of that area. In the 2008 election, the difference between red and blue votes cast upstate was 20,000 - a surmountable number. This was tremendously squelched, however, by the large number of voters in the New York City area, 2/3 of whom voted Democrat, leaving upstate along for the ride.

The last polls I read showed New York as a whole leaning 61-63% toward Democrat votes. In order to make New York a swing state, the entirety of upstate would have to vote Republican.

The Electoral College carries no concern for the interests of upstate New York, save that its residents can stay home on Election Day, as their ballots are inconsequential.

Some states do split up their electoral votes and I wish NY did also. We get screwed in upstate. Have you seen how democrats, and especiall Obama, did in the Bronx?!?!?! I think Obama got 98% of the vote there!!! The 2% were probably the lingering Italian population in little Italy.

If you assign 2 electoral votes to the winner of the state and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, Bush would have crushed Gore in 2004. What serves the interests of people in the middle of upstate NY is not even close to what serves the interests of people living in Harlem. But, whereas people in upstate differ in their opinion on how to solve the problems, people in Harlem ALL think the democrat is ALWAYS the answer. When one district goes 98% democrat, you need a lot of other districts to go 60/40 to make up the difference. Stated another way, the popular vote has far from a normal distribution when you bin districts. It is wildly skewed in favor of democrats who are more likely to be unreasonable, irrational extremists.

So, there you have another reason to have some sort of electoral college system. Right or wrong, a skewed demographic deciding the outcome of the presidential election is not what this country is all about.

[injuhneer]

Originally Posted by icingdeath88

I still have yet to have anyone adequately explain to me why we have not switched to a popular vote yet.

Because a simple majority results in a simple mob democracy.

-Mike O

[sicksubie]

I am going to post excerpts from an article for people to mull over. It was written by a friend of mine as to why he will be voting for Mitt Romney this November. I apologize in advance for the wall of text. Also, I know before I post this that very few people here will agree with all the positions the writer takes, but still read through it entirely please.


"This has been the most unusual election season of my life. The chief reason for the difference is my very active participation in Facebook—which has thrust me into a wide-ranging discussion (and sometimes heated debates) in a format that is very egalitarian in nature. I can only hope that I have contributed to others as much as I feel that my FB friends have contributed to me.

But because of my background, I have been asked countless times for my views about the various candidates. And during the primary process I was very open about my inability to support the “front-runner” Mitt Romney. In the context of a primary election, there is no doubt that I had to support someone who had views and a record much closer to my own views...

But now it is general election time. And I have to say that I have been much slower to reach a decision regarding the General Election than any previous election in my lifetime. I have heard the arguments about the inappropriateness of choosing the “lesser of two evils”. I have taken these arguments very seriously.

I have to confess that I have lost patience with people who seek to batter other believers into accepting their views about this election. There are many who feel compelled by conscience to vote for Mitt Romney because the alternative is so frightful to consider. There are others, not as many (but very vociferous) who think that voting for the lesser of two evils is a grievous sin. And they have concluded as a matter of conscience that they cannot vote for him.

Here is my statement to both camps. Leave each other alone. If you want to tell people what you have chosen to do and why, that is perfectly acceptable.

This election has caused me to understand that there is a difference between “endorsing” a candidate and voting for a candidate. There should be a very high standard that I should employ before I endorse a candidate. As you will see, I have come to look at candidates in one of four ways: 1. Those who are very supportive of my views. 2. Those who will listen to my views. 3. Those who are indifferent to my views. 4. Those who are openly hostile to my views.

In the past, I have tried—more or less—to only endorse candidates who are in the first category—those who are supportive of my views. I intend to follow this standard very rigorously from this point forward. Accordingly, I will make no endorsement for President in 2012. This does not mean that I intend not to vote. I will vote for a candidate for reasons I describe below.

There is no candidate in this race who is supportive of my views on my five most important issues. This includes third party candidates and the possibility of write-in votes. I want candidates who have been tested and who have the experience to perform the task at hand.

Other than the two major candidates, I have seen no one who claims to be running for president who meets the test of life preparation and experience to hold this weighty office.

This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that I will automatically vote for the “lesser evil” of the two remaining candidates. The idea of not voting for anyone is something that I have seriously considered.

I realize that on the issue of personal character we have limited information for both Obama and Romney. There could be skeletons hiding in the closet for either or both of them. And in terms of their political lives, both men are subject to criticism for saying one thing and doing another. That matters. But, the area of character that is most visible to all of us is the marriage and family life of both men. In our society, marital faithfulness is passé for many and giving some priority to your children is unfortunately rare.

In these areas, I would say that both men seem to be very good to their wives and their children. Whatever their other faults may be—and they are many—I have to say that I admire each of these men as it pertains to their family life.

Now we turn to the issue of the public policy positions of the candidates—as measured by both their speeches and their records.

If perfection is our standard for the evaluation of policy issues, we will never find a candidate to fulfill our wishes. I have decided to evaluate the candidates based on the issues that are the most important to me using the four-standards I mentioned earlier. Take the issue of abortion, for example:


1. Does the candidate enthusiastically agree with my pro-life position?


2. Is the candidate willing to listen to my pro-life position and work with people like me to move in the right direction?


3. Is the candidate indifferent to my pro-life position?


4. Is the candidate openly hostile to my pro-life position?


If a candidate is in the 1st or 2nd group for all—or nearly all—of the issues that are most important to me, then I am willing to vote for such a candidate. If a candidate is in the 4th group (open hostility) for any of the positions that I hold to be most important, I would not be able to vote for such a candidate.


Before I turn to my analysis of the issues—I have to face my own rather strident comments toward Mitt Romney during the primary process. Some may ask: What changed? Three things.


· First, the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare was a real surprise to me. I was convinced that it would go down to defeat and there was no chance that a new Congress would re-enact it. If this law is not reversed before it is fully implemented we will never rid ourselves of socialism.


· Second, the Obama administration made a very strong attempt to pass the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—demonstrating an intention to fully enact the entire UN agenda. This is coupled with Mitt Romney’s strong position in opposition to this kind of use of international law. I cannot stress too strongly how important this is—at least to me.

· Finally, I actually paid attention to the comments of my friends on FB and elsewhere. I would have to say that the tenor of the comments meant as much to me as the substance. I became open to rethinking my views in light of these comments. And that rethinking has led me to address the two candidates on an issue by issue basis.


So, what are the issues that are the most important to me? I am going to share my list. I do not claim that your list should be exactly the same as mine.


1. Does the candidate support or oppose American self-government?


The reason that our Founders declared independence from England in 1776 was not because of religious liberty or tax policy—it was because they believed that the principle of American self-government was worth the risk of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.


Barack Obama is openly hostile to the principle of American self-government. He wants to seek ratification of every currently unratified UN treaty including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These treaties would use international law to override American self-government on parental rights, abortion rights, homosexual rights, gun rights, and a host of other issues while fully mandating a robust socialist state. These policies are bad substantively. But, they are far worse when they are forced down our unwilling throats as a consequence of the primacy of international treaties.


Barack Obama’s hostility to American self-government makes all of his other bad policy positions seem like child’s play in my view. This is the biggest issue to me—and Obama is hostile to this central premise of American political life. He is strongly desirous of making America subject to the rule of international law under the UN.


Mitt Romney has told me in a one-on-one conversation that he fully agrees with my view that such UN treaties have no legitimate place in our legal system. He has sent me a personal, signed letter saying the same thing. This letter has been made public. There is nothing in his past to cause me to doubt his sincerity on this issue. So on this issue, I rate Mitt Romney as “one of us”—fully agreeing with our position. (This is the only issue where he gets this rating from me.)


2. The Right to Life.


Barack Obama is openly hostile to the right to life. He is absolutely committed to Roe v. Wade and the full support of Planned Parenthood. He will fight us every step of the way on this issue.


Mitt Romney has a checkered past on this issue. He claims that he has been converted to the pro-life position. I don’t feel convinced that he has fully converted. However, it is clear that he is talking pro-life talk and taking pro-life positions. I think he does this, at least in part, because he realizes that being perceived as pro-life is necessary for his political success. And I don’t think he thinks that it is just necessary to be pro-life until November of 2012. He wants to be re-elected. So, at a minimum, I think we can count on him to keep up this pragmatic approach until November of 2016.


This does not make Mitt Romney my enemy. I think it is fair to say that he is listening to pro-life people and wants to work with pro-life people. I give him a “2” on this issue. He is not one of us. But he listens and is willing to have us in his coalition and knows the necessity of advancing some of our pro-life priorities.


3. Marriage and same-sex issues.


Barack Obama again in open-war against our values on this issue. He could not be worse.


Mitt Romney has a very troubling record on this issue--so troubling that I have a difficult time believing that he is a “2” on this issue. He now says that he is against same-sex marriage. But his rhetoric and record is so mixed on homosexual rights issues that it is hard to know what to expect. But, he is not openly hostile to our agenda. I conclude that he is someplace between a 2 (listening to us) and a 3 (indifferent to us).


4. Religious freedom.


Barack Obama is batting four-for-four. He is an enemy of religious liberty. Only those religious groups that do not challenge his worldview should be allowed to have freedom. Pro-life religions are not tolerated. The name of Jesus cannot be prayed in military ceremonies. He is worse than any American president in history on this issue. Bill Clinton actually supported religious liberty. I would give Clinton a 1 on religious liberty (back when he was president, not now.) I give Barack Obama a 4. I do not mean to suggest that President Obama is actively rounding up Christians to arrest us for our views. However, there is a systematic pattern of favoring government power whenever religious people bump up against the politically correct thinking of the left by refusing to fund insurance for abortion services or by insisting on praying to Jesus as a military chaplain.


Mitt Romney supports religious liberty in a robust fashion—today. Some people claim that some components of his record in Massachusetts demonstrate an indifference to our view. From what I know, these examples are pretty few in number. But, today he is saying all of the right things on this issue. Has he fully changed? I don’t know. If he had fully changed, I would give him a “1”—being one of us—but, because of my doubts on his changes, I give him a “2”—he listens to us and is open to advancing our viewpoint on religious liberty.


It is highly relevant to note that the LDS Church has an exemplary record on the issue of religious liberty for a long, long time. I think that Mitt Romney will listen to voices of religious liberty.


5. The Scope of Government (taxes, spending, etc.)


Barack Obama advocates a socialist state. Anyone who doubts this has never read or digested the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Obama not only wants government services for their own sake, he actively believes that the redistribution of wealth is the morally appropriate policy. He is an enemy of those who believe in a government based on liberty, not socialism.


Mitt Romney will spend way too much money and will promote programs at the federal level that properly belong to the states. But, unlike Barack Obama he does not believe in the redistribution of wealth as a moral imperative.


Accordingly, I give Obama a 4 on this issue and Romney a 3. He is indifferent to small, government conservative views on spending, but he is not an enemy of private property that is inherent in those who believe in the redistribution of wealth.


Those are my five issues. Obama is openly hostile to my views on all the things that I believe are the most important. Romney is “one of us” on the issue of American self-government and listens to us on most of the others and is truly indifferent to our views on only one.


With this in mind, am I giving into an improper “lesser of two evils” argument?


I don’t think so. I think the more relevant analysis boils down to the question of whether both candidates are our enemies. If both are our enemies, then neither should get our votes. But, if one is clearly an enemy of our deeply-cherished values, and the other is (on average) open to listening to us and working with us—this is not merely the lesser of two people in the same category.

It is the American self-government issue that is the most important to me. If we retain American self-government we live to fight again on all the other issues. Obama is going to eliminate self-government through the use of UN treaties. I view this moment as do or die for American self-government.


I am going to vote for Mitt Romney.


However, I would say that if Mitt Romney gets elected president, it will be the job of every loyal American to make sure that he lives up to the promises he is making to us now. I am hopeful he will do the things he promises. But, I will be watchful and ready to call the alarm. "

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by halistan

Ok, seen the Presidential debate and the VP debates now.

Without causing too much of a firestorm...anyone wanna take bets on who will win the election?

I'm independant and not particularly attached to either side. I'm purely asking what people think will happen.

Before the debates I was fairly sure that Obama was going to win the re-election. However, I'm not as certain now. It seems to be a toss up to me.

At this point in time (if I had to make a decision right this moment) I would say that Romney would get it. However, that is likely to change tomorrow...who knows.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Obama will get re-elected.

[injuhneer]

Originally Posted by SilverSpear

Obama will get re-elected.

We are hosed either way. If Obama doesn't win I am concerned about his Lame Duck actions (contrived civil unrest seems most likely).

If he is re-elected we may as well become a bunch of cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys.

Anyone selling tickets to Mars?

-Mike O