So it's gonna be Obama with a landslide!

[Paper Carnival]

Yay, an internet argument!

We have elections tomorrow at my university where we'll vote for student representatives. I'm honestly voting for the hottest nominee just because she's hot, and I'm damn proud of it.

[Snarky]

The thread has moved on to more productive discussion (and some actual sound, solid information for a change), so I don't mean to drag it back to this, just responding to Nacho.

Snarky, my friend, I want you to take this in the "good" side, so, here it goes:

You "project" too much. Darth has expressed some opinions many people has and you are twisting his words in a way that, reading what you say of him, might take to think that you are debating against one of those born-in-the bayou-no-teeth-Southern-flag-sticker-in-the-van idiot. Relax mate... You don' t know what kind of person he is, you are being quite unfair.

Look, I am the first in the line when it' s necessary to beat some idiots, I like it, it's my favourite sport, (^_^) but in this case the tone is not justified at all... Hope you take my advice in the good sense.

Right. I'm sure Darth isn't a bad guy, and I don't at all see him as any kind of neanderthal yokel. I guess what rubbed me the wrong way was that comment about "sheep", especially mixed in with all that pious "can't we all just get along" and "people need to respect other's viewpoints" stuff. People who hold opinions out of the mainstream have a tendency to get really self-righteous about their independent thinking and rugged individualism. The kind of Ayn Rand "heroic loner" bullshit. Maybe it's a defensive posture against the disapproval of the majority, I don't know. Anyway, I find it obnoxious and, unless backed by action, certainly unwarranted. And to not recognize it as exactly the kind of denigration of other people's thinking supposedly abhorred is, if not hypocritical, definitely oblivious.

Bah! Let us speak no more of it!

Yeah, I too heard that one of the original thoughts behind the electoral college was the assumption that Joe-the-ignorant-redneck-farmer-from-Kentucky was too oblivious of national politics to make an informed choice about out-of-state candidates who hailed from the Boston or Florida area. Thus, the electoral college could make an "informed choice" on behalf of the voters.

I believe another factor was the logistical difficulty of running a nation-wide election in those days. In fact, many states did not choose their electoral college representatives by popular vote for at least the first 50 years of the republic.

Since the US was originally viewed more as a federation of states than a single nation, apportioning votes by states made a lot of sense. With the federal government taking an ever-more central role in US politics, setting more policies directly, there's certainly an argument to be made that the process is archaic.

I think a lot of people hesitate to mess with a system that is at the core of US democracy, and which has worked reasonably well for more than 200 years. Especially when the alternative isn't going produce a different election result unless the race is already very close. The benefit just isn't that great. The risks, on the other hand: If you start messing with the Constitution, you have to make damn sure that lobbyists and special interest groups don't bias the new rules in their favor. Also, the effect on political campaigning is unpredictable. Would it lead to more populism and demagoguery? Would it make it more palatable for politicians to go after minorities like Latinos if they didn't have to always worry about how that would play in Florida?

And of course, many states have a vested interest in the status quo, especially small swing states like New Hampshire, Nevada, or (somewhat bigger) Ohio, who get disproportionate attention under the current system.

Still, maybe the importance of following the popular vote (which I think is fetishized more than it deserves, but which strikes a lot of people as the only "fair" measure) outweighs these risks. There are ongoing efforts to implement a nationwide popular poll for president, and a number of states have adopted laws that will trigger if states making up a majority of the electoral vote join them, pledging to vote in accordance with the result of the popular vote. (This way you can achieve the same effect without changing the constitution, and without the consent of many states that would be opposed.) If you think it's an important issue, you can take active steps to support this effort, gathering signatures, writing to Congress, etc.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Anyway, I find it obnoxious and, unless backed by action, certainly unwarranted. And to not recognize it as exactly the kind of denigration of other people's thinking supposedly abhorred is, if not hypocritical, definitely oblivious.

I hope this isn't how you view my personal position on this matter, because I feel exactly as you do with regards to this.  I personally write senators and congressmen with my thoughts on issues (most recently the bailout fiasco) and let John Kyl know I wouldn't be endorsing his return to the Senate in spite of his sickly-sweet reply full of half-truths and poorly understood economic terms.  I'm not saying I'm some economy expert, mind, but I've studied it enough to know when someone's bullshitting to cover up a lack of knowledge, and boy was he on a roll!

At any rate, I fully agree with Snarky that if you want to affect change you need to get involved, Darth.  Stop thinking that your voice doesn't count and that doing nothing is better than trying and not being recognized, because if fewer people thought like you we wouldn't have such a dearth of voters today.  Writing your congressman and local senators about your views on key issues is one of the best ways to influence their actions. 

If you need an example of how important this process is, I'll give you one from personal experience:

During the bailout debates, I read about the package and decided for myself that it would do nothing to resolve the situation and wrote my local congressman Ed Pastor about it.  As it turns out, his office was literally swamped with similar letters and voice messages urging him not to vote yes on the bill, and in his reply to me he said the public outcry was staggering and that he could not in good conscience vote for the bill.  So did I help to influence him?  Yes and no.  He was already leery of it, but the sheer amount of public disapproval he was receiving in the form of letters and calls helped convince him that his position was defensible, and that's what it's all about.

Also, everyone knows politicians are more malleable during election season ^_^.

[Snarky]

No, not at all. I get the impression that I probably disagree with you on the issues, but I respect that you take the consequences of your positions.

[jetxl]

But ProgZmax there was still a bailout bill pressed through. Not even a congressman vote matters.

[Snarky]

Well, it did fail on the first attempt, and had to be modified to get through Congress. Probably not to ProgZ's satisfaction, but a lot of economists thought the changes were an improvement.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

No, I don't think the bill solved anything (some of the tacked-on conditions are even worse, and the bill went from 3 pages to something like 300 just to keep most of the senate from reading it all) and is just delaying an inevitable economic downturn.  As for it not having an effect, well as Snarky said, it did.  Ed Pastor along with other like-minded men and women overturned the bill in Congress, but then the Senate (in my opinion) ignored the voice of the people by not observing the ruling, altering the bill and voting on it again.  Kyl was one of the front-runners championing the bill in the Senate, which is why I mentioned him (and my unwillingness to support his future in politics).  Pessimists can still see this as a failure of the system and a reason for not doing anything, and that's their (or your) right.  I just don't see it that way.

[MillsJROSS]

To the topic's point...I confidently think the winner will be Obama. It's easy for me to say one day before voting, with polls that strongly favor Obama, however, I've strongly felt this election was in the bag after the third presidential debate.

I've drunk deep from the kool-aid and I strongly support Barack Obama as viable candidate for president. I admittedly stand firmly to the center left. I'm a sheep or a lemming, whichever animal analogy works better for you. I was never going to vote for McCain, regardless of his running mate. I'm completely and utterly biased, and I'm loving this election.

That said...I constantly read news, and educate myself in this election. I don't just listen to the "liberal" media, but I read conservative articles and listen to conservative radio.

Is it fair that we only get two parties? No. However, the Florida ballot has 13 candidates for president, so it's not exactly fair to say we only get two choices. It is fair to say that the Democrats and Republicans get 99.9% of the media coverage, though...and it's highly unlikely that a third party candidate will win until that changes. I don't necessarily disagree with having two major parties. Especially when you consider both parties platforms are general and bland enough to encompass opposing views within their own parties. However, if anyone is against the two party system, it means much more to vote for someone like Barr or Nader, than to not vote at all.

As to the discussion of the popular vote. I'm on the fence with this one. With the federal government having as much control as it does, I think it makes sense to go with the popular vote. However, if there ever is a successful push to put more power back into the states, than, I do feel the electoral college makes sense. Regardless of either one...the real gripe I have about voting is how difficult it is to vote. We live in the age of the internet, we have on-line banking. We have the ability to make a secure, easy-to-use, way of registering and voting for local, state, and federal elections all from home. The reason it hasn't been done is the disparity between registered republicans and democrats. Roughly 40% of voters are registered Democrat, 30% Republican, and 30% Independent. So from the start of the election, Democrats have about a 10% advantage from the start of an election. That said, many Independents tend to be on the moderate right side of the political spectrum. Which is why we see close races. As a person in the computer industry, I just feel it's sad that we haven't  taken a central effort to try and develop a on-line system for voting.

Back to this election. I think Obama has run on a more unifying message than I've seen from the other side (in this election). Could he be all hot air? Sure. Could he really have a liberal agenda? Probably, but as a liberal that doesn't scare me. The reason I'm mainly attracted to him as a candidate, though, is that he exudes intelligence. He seems to make decisions after taking into account the short run, the long run, and other outside factors. Will he prevent a crisis from happening? Maybe, but not all of them (I don't think anyone will do that). However, I feel that when one comes our way, he'll be better able manage how to get out of it. Will he strengthen our economy? I think so. I think one of his strengths will be his ability to choose good, smart people to help make decisions he might not have the knowledge to make. I think his campaign is an indication of the well run machine he would bring to the office.

I will say, that as far as elections go, this has been a tame election. John McCain has come off as negative, yes, but most of that is because he can't afford not to. There's evidence to support that negative ads are more prone to change minds than positive ads. With the difference in the campaign funds, it's only natural that the majority of his ads are negative, where Obama can afford to spend money on positive ads. To his credit, he has avoided Reverend Wright. And while the Ayers association doesn't resonate with me, I don't completely discount it. I just feel that John McCain has stronger associations (Keating Five, Gordon Libby, etc...).

Regardless of how you vote, make sure you're informed. I think everyone should vote. If not for president, than at least for some of the local and state issues that are in this ballot. Democrat, Republican, or Independent...we're all in this together, and we need to be able to disagree without villainizing each other.

-MillsJROSS

[Snarky]

Nice perspective, Mills.

I would be all for online voting if you could solve two major problems:

1. How do you make sure that people are voting by their own free will, and not under duress?
2. It would make it easy to prove how you voted. That would make selling your vote a much more attractive offer.

(Though admittedly, with video cameras on cell phones, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to prove what you did in the voting booth, either.)

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't really have a problem with a lack of online voting since you can elect to receive your ballot considerably early and either submit it by mail or just quickly drop it off at the voting center, which is what I was going to do until I messed mine up  . 

The nice thing was I just went to my local church at 5:30 am, and after a short wait used my mail ballot as a reference and presto: vote!

[Pumaman]

The strange thing about this campaign is that the media have talked a lot about Obama, McCain and Palin.

But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

[LimpingFish]

But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

Joe Biden. And Yes.

But then, next to a batshit-insane robo-MILF, most people seem dull.

[Moresco]

But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

Joe Biden.

Yeah he's nobody....like a Joe-six-pack, if you will.

[Matti]

But he's been asked rediculous questions.

[m0ds]

Yay! Election night! Go Obama!!

[Sam.]

This is the most boring exciting thing I have ever watched.

[GarageGothic]

And the horrible, looping, action movie style music they play on CNN while presenting the results is driving me nuts.

Edit: WTF? "CNN's Jessica Yellin via hologram"? Since when does badly done bluescreen work paired with motion synced cameras constitute a hologram? I wonder how many millions they wasted on this embarrassing gimmick.

Edit 2: Obama is projected the winner! Excellent, the world isn't entirely going to hell in a handbasket after all. Now, bedtime.

[m0ds]

The number of cock ups on the BBC one is amazing! The ITV coverage is crap, none of them know what they're saying. Watched some CNN coverage too. It's funny how out of touch the coverage seems too, when the BBC reporters interview an American and they don't have a clue what he's asking hehe. Anyway its good to see Obama win

[Evil]

Not exactly a landslide, but he won.

Maybe the rest of the world have respect for us again.

[Darth Mandarb]

posting from my iPhone ... Just wanted to be the first to say I've never been so glad to be wrong (about McCain winning despite the popular vote)

If nothing else the rest of the world seems to be happy about it