|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Oct 31, 2008 9:26:02 GMT -5
I was just looking at the top right map on www.fivethirtyeight.com/ and it got me thinking: Does that image typically illustrate how voting usually works in the US? I mean, aren't Texas and a lot of the southern states safe havens for Republican candidates? It ... sort of bothers me that things are like this though as it just means that no matter how evil or dorky a person is, as long as he or she is affiliated with a certain party, he/she will get 100% votes in particular states. >:/ This is ... blind voting, I tells ya! |
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Oct 31, 2008 10:28:44 GMT -5
red is republican blue is democrats. you would be amazed that they really don't seem to teach that to the public in general.
Quote: It ... sort of bothers me that things are like this though as it just means that no matter how evil or dorky a person is, as long as he or she is affiliated with a certain party, he/she will get 100% votes in particular states. >:/
You mean popular vote vs. electoral vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Oct 31, 2008 10:32:22 GMT -5
A Neiman Marxist  What would you do if you had $150,000 to spend? Buy a house? Pay for prescription drugs? The Palin shopping spree is more than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. I saw that on the link you sent. that is so funny! For those that don't know Neiman Marcus is high end clothes |
|
|
|
Post by psybuster on Oct 31, 2008 11:20:41 GMT -5
Electoral college system. If a candidate gets a majority of a state's votes (by the individuals), they'll get "all" of that states electoral votes, which are equal to the number of House + Senate members that state has. The electoral ones are the only ones that matter for winning presidency, which they also need a majority of. There have been some cases where a couple of electorate voters "betrayed" the state/people and voted for the other candidate.
If you want a more extreme/clear cut example, find a map/statistics of when Reagan won the presidencies in 1980/1984.
|
|
|
|
Post by FM-77AV on Oct 31, 2008 13:26:14 GMT -5
Many republicans seem to be extremely conservative, and conservative translates to "doesn't think" or rather "is too stupid or ignorant to come with or accept new and better ideas". And blind voting is a result of that stupidity/ignorance.
NOTE: "Many", not "all".
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Hairdo on Oct 31, 2008 13:29:57 GMT -5
This thread is Nightwolve-magnetic. XD Anyway, I personally wouldn't want Bush 2.0 to win. =( But since I don't know too much about the two candidates, I have a rather neutral opinion. Off-somewhat-topic: Bush didn't actually win the last time. The government even admitted there was some sort of calculation error or something, but nothing was done after that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 14:29:05 GMT -5
What's this, a politcal thread, in My Ancient Land of Ys? It's more likely than I thought!
Historically speaking, Texas is a kinda sorta swing state. It's been firmly red for the last few elections, but before this it has varied a lot. While it has a huge republican population out in the boonies, several of its major cities, Dallas and Austin in particular, I think, tend toward democratic pretty heavily. It's not enough to be typically counted on, but Texas is not completely unreachable in the same way, say Oklahoma or Utah is.
As for blind party identification, yeah that kinda sucks. The problem is, research has always been a pain in the shit. Before the internet, our sources were pretty limited. You had a couple of news networks and radio stations, and...that's about it. Since the advent of the World Wide Web, there's such a huge amount of garbage that it's really hard to find what is reliable and what is not. It's still pretty new territory for a lot of people. I've been following the election and its precursors since June '07, and there are still a lot of sites out there I can't verify are decent.
The other problem is confirmation bias; it's very easy to give credence to things that support what we already believe; and the Internet makes a great echo chamber for that sort of thing. This can quickly become hilarious as hell to an outside observer (Go watch Free Republic, and witness the head-exploding levels of Cognitive Dissonance.)
Another important aspect of the problem is that many people don't have the time to properly inform themselves, because they're too busy being worked half to death.
The current election is particularly interesting, for me at least, due to it being more or less a cumiliation of the decay that's infected the Republican Party since the Nixon years, taking what was once a respectable party and transforming it to an aggregate of maniacs and people holding on hoping it might represent something akin to what it used to; which it has not since the Reagan Era.
BUT NOW I AM RAMBLING. IN BETTER RESPONSE TO THE OP.
If you don't like the Republican Party, or at least don't like McCain, that map you linked suggests very good news. Nate Silver is a highly respected number cruncher, so I am willing to give particular weight to what he says.
Edit: Also, something I forgot to note, the US Presidential election is winner take all for the majority of states. IE: Whomever gets a majority of popular votes gets all the electoral votes in that state.
I believe Nebraska and Maine apportion theirs based on districts, though. Something like that; they are not winner take all.
No state is 100% for either party with the popular vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Oct 31, 2008 14:52:32 GMT -5
Many republicans seem to be extremely conservative, and conservative translates to "doesn't think" or rather "is too stupid or ignorant to come with or accept new and better ideas". And blind voting is a result of that stupidity/ignorance. NOTE: "Many", not "all". Marry me. XD |
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 15:06:54 GMT -5
I call bridesmaid! And pastor!
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Hairdo on Oct 31, 2008 15:41:37 GMT -5
And so has spoken our fellow politics columnist, The Captain! xD Nice read.
ALoY
Serious Business
|
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 17:01:53 GMT -5
I do my best, sir. =]
|
|
|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Oct 31, 2008 18:05:48 GMT -5
I disagree. Most conservative Republicans are all about doing what's best for the future, while totally ignoring the present... whereas most liberal Democrats are all about doing what's best for the present, while totally ignoring the future. Neither is the answer. Is there any party out there that's a fusion of the two? :P And Red, no. No to Nightwolve. |
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 18:32:22 GMT -5
I disagree. Most conservative Republicans are all about doing what's best for the future, while totally ignoring the present... whereas most liberal Democrats are all about doing what's best for the present, while totally ignoring the future. Neither is the answer. -Tom On the other hand, evidence. The war in Iraq was not good for the future. Ignoring the massive disparity with capitalized healthcare is not good for the future. Massive deregulation of the banking industry is not good for the future. Suspending Habeas Corpus is not good for the future. Establishing torture as a normal and routine measure is not good for the future. These are all things the Republican Party was lock step for, and many are still trying to defend it. The Republican Party you speak of more or less died when Nixon took office; or when Goldwater lost. Edit: Oh yes, completely roadblocking immigration reform is no good for the future, which is amusing because it's one of the few things that Pharoah Reagan AND Bush Jr. had fairly far-sighted views upon. And this all off the top of my head. I'm not even looking these up, and I keep thinking of more. Politicizing the Justice Department, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Oct 31, 2008 18:39:56 GMT -5
In fact, I hate politics altogether, which is why I've opted out of them entirely. I don't even know why I'm posting in this topic, to be honest. Cuz it's fun! Well, no. It's cuz you love us and know that we won't be asses about the stuff that's going on right now. Actually, I couldn't care less about what goes on in politics myself. My initial post was just pondering if certain states will always remain fixed to supporting a certain party or not. If they do, then they're just full of silly people! |
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 18:44:25 GMT -5
Indeed, please don't feel I'm trying to tear you a new one, Wyrdy. It's just that what you said doesn't mesh with reality. I'm sorry if I came off harsh or anything. =[
|
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 18:46:59 GMT -5
As for states changing, well, in the 1984 election, every state but Minnesota went red. Even California. Mind you it was Reagan's home state, but still.
There's a number of states that probably won't turn either way without a highly transformative candidate. Utah, Oklahoma, and Wyoming are excellent examples on the Republican side, California, New York, and a lot of New England on the Democratic side. But, this particular election has made a lot of Republican ones more swingy than usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 31, 2008 19:07:01 GMT -5
Wyrdy, don't take this wrong way, but...that's really pretty cowardly. What you are saying, to me, reads as. "This is what I believe and it's right and don't try to debate with me and no I won't try to prove it!"
That's pretty much saying you are so afraid of being proven wrong you won't even take the risk. Which is...kinda what you're saying is the problem; if you're claiming people need to think about radical positions.
If you're gonna say something, be willing to back yourself up. Would you like me to start? I'd be all too happy to elaborate on each of the points I made if they don't seem self evident to you. You may even pick your favorite!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Oct 31, 2008 23:52:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by macroidtoe on Nov 1, 2008 2:46:53 GMT -5
My maternal grandfather was a dedicated Democrat, my paternal grandfather a serious Republican. They both ran for a seat in the state legislature. (Separate seats at different times, not against each other! Although that would have been interesting...) My Republican grandfather actually won, and is still in the state legislature (now in the Senate, running one last time this year). My Democrat grandfather passed away last year, but I always thought it would have been interesting if he had also won his election... certainly would have provided for some lively conversation at family events. ("Damn it, I've told you a thousand times that Bill 546789 is a piece of junk!") I don't know, I just thought I'd mention that as sort of an odd set of circumstances within my family with regards to political affiliation -- that I've grown up with relatives with strong feelings on both sides. Not quite sure where that leaves me. In the 2004 election, I wrote my own name in for president (I am, after all, the one individual who is most capable of representing my views and interests)... and right now my facebook profile picture is a "Vote for Cthulhu: Why Choose the Lesser Evil?" poster.  |
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Nov 1, 2008 5:35:30 GMT -5
Alright Wyrdy, I think that's still extremely cowardly, if you're so obsessed with having a perfect image you can't let facts shatter it, but alright. My first instinct was to post up a few youtubes of McCain engaging in exactly the kind of doubletalk you claimed he didn't do. But I shant. And I won't pester you further, although I'd like to, because you're my friend and I feel you're hurting yourself by doing this. In the 2004 election, I wrote my own name in for president (I am, after all, the one individual who is most capable of representing my views and interests) This is very correct, and there are a lot of people who don't pick up on the fact. The only person who is ever going to perfectly represent your views is yourself. When voting for any kind of representative, you have to give and take a bit. As such, you have to weigh what is most important to you, and then decide if you can surrender it for other things. The trick, of course, is to try not to be a single issue voter if you can help it. Single issue voters have been manipulated pretty heavily throughout history; to the point that Popes John Paul II AND Benedict XVI have had to point out that it is not something that Catholics should do in regards to Abortion, without regard to anything else. |
|
