Does McCain already have the Election won?

[Patrick Degan]

I disagree. First, I don't see how you come to the formulation that people "don't count" in a proportional system, since under winner-take-all, if 29,000 people in Wyoming voted Obama but 33,000 voted McCain, that means McCain gets all of Wyoming's 3 electoral votes, Obama zero and 29,000 Obama voters definitely "don't count". Under the outlined system, McCain gets two votes but Obama still gets one, which means his voters did gain him one more electoral vote to his tally instead of none. NPV has the same defect you decry, only it simply shifts the ground on the winner-take-all mechanism from one pathway to another.

Because the popular vote matters. In the NPV system, whoever wins the popular vote wins. Period.

Example: 240,000 wyoming residents vote, being split into 80,000 margins for a single EV.

If 40,000 Wyomingans vote for Obama but 200,000 for McCain, here's what happens:

NPV: Obama count is incremented by 40,000, McCain count is incremented by 200k. Both count equally towards determining who is the President of the US (not the president of wyoming, or the president of the swing states).

Your model: Obama gets 0 EV, McCain gets 3 EV. Obama voters in Wyoming still do not matter unless the election is more contentuous.

Wrong. My model outlines that Obama gets at least 1 EV. It is not winner-take-all but proportional allocation and I don't know where you are getting any other interpretation of what I laid out.

Clearly, the NPV model is unfair because the EV of a state don't go to whoever the state wants but whom the nation wants.

Which is what the NPV proposal actually says.

I think either you didn't read it or didn't understand the idea behind it- the states are made irrelevant by the fact that they all vote en-bloc to the winner of the popular vote. That's the whole point- EV isn't supposed to be proportional to popular opinion, or else it's just a grainier measure of popular opinion.

Too bad that flies in the face of the federalist model on which the country's government is actually based.

Why bother taking the popular vote totals of a state and then dividing them into blocks of 80,000 when you can just look at the popular vote for the nation, and whomever has the highest number of votes is the winner.

Who said anything about dividing the state vote into blocks? That is not what the proportional representation model I propose incorporates at all. The EV allocation is based on a simple mathematical formula.

Is there a reason behind turning an election of 300,000,000 people that is 50 elections of unequally sized blocks into an election of 538 more equally sized elections? Why not just make it a single election and stop futzing about with grainy count totals when the popular vote is clearly whoever wins.

You touch upon a key question underlying the entire debate about the electoral college's role in American politics dating from the first days of the republic. The problem is that different states have different concerns and different political worldviews. The compromise between straight democracy and a centralised republic (and I am constrained to point out that a republican form of government need not operate with any reference to popular vote at all) requires a mechanism to address these concerns electorally; so that whole states aren't rendered politically irrelevant. Besides which, if you think vote fraud is a problem now, I would point out that it would be far easier to rig a single election than it would be for fifty separate elections.

The Compact method of bloc voting the EV is meant to destroy the EV as a unit of measure by making it nonfunctional, not to divide up EV in accordance with public opinion, for the reason of the flaw I just pointed out above.

In that case, why not abolish it altogether? Why even bother with an NPV mechanism that keeps the EC as a useless sham existing only out of tradition?

Another flaw: Your method, every single state must join or else that state's votes being non-proportional would imbalance the system. Or, it would take a constitutional amendment. NPV method, only about 20-30 states must join until their bloc vote for the popular winner will decide the election every time. So it either takes 50 states agreeing (something that almost never happens) or a constitutional amendment- and if you're going to constitutionally amend the process, why keep the EV in the first place just to make it a grainier popular vote?

Hate to tell you this, but your model shares that exact same flaw along with the other aforementioned problems.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Then why exactly are you supporting an anti-choice fundie who belongs to a church with fundie militant connections as Veep?

And yet, she hasn't done anything while in office that makes me worried that she's going to try to establish Third Wave as the official religion of the United States. I'd say Palin's connections to Third Wave are about as solid as Obama's connections to radical-pro-african christians, and I don't think they affect HIS judgement any more than Palin's preachers affect hers.

I'll repeat myself from earlier, which policies does McCain actually have that are superior to Obama's? This should be simple to answer.

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure. I also like him on defense, though I'm not thrilled that he seems to be up for picking a fight with Russia.

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I am honestly quite disgusted at McCain's VP pick. I know I'm coming from a different standpoint but I could never vote for such a bigoted cunt. McCain's choice only reinforces my impression that whatever 'Maverick' ideals he had are now just empty political points he's using to try to win the election.

[aerius]

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

Well, at least he'll have lots of unemployed debt slaves to use as labourers for build all that new infrastructure...

[CaptainChewbacca]

I am honestly quite disgusted at McCain's VP pick. I know I'm coming from a different standpoint but I could never vote for such a bigoted cunt. McCain's choice only reinforces my impression that whatever 'Maverick' ideals he had are now just empty political points he's using to try to win the election.

Yeah, what kind of a woman vetoes her own party's legislation to make sure gays get full benefits from partner status, then ignores her church when they have a 'pray the gay away' conference?

[General Zod]

And yet, she hasn't done anything while in office that makes me worried that she's going to try to establish Third Wave as the official religion of the United States. I'd say Palin's connections to Third Wave are about as solid as Obama's connections to radical-pro-african christians, and I don't think they affect HIS judgement any more than Palin's preachers affect hers.

Except Obama isn't an anti-choicer, pro abstinence only education supporter. Quite frankly the fact that you think someone who supports either of these policies is a good candidates is absurd.

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure. I also like him on defense, though I'm not thrilled that he seems to be up for picking a fight with Russia.

In other words, you support the Bush stance on energy.

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

While completely ignoring important things like healthcare and economic issues in the process. Hooray for single issue voting?

[Big Phil]

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure. I also like him on defense, though I'm not thrilled that he seems to be up for picking a fight with Russia.

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

What is the difference between McCain's energy policy and Obama's?

What else do you agree with McCain on that you disagree with Obama?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure. I also like him on defense, though I'm not thrilled that he seems to be up for picking a fight with Russia.

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

What is the difference between McCain's energy policy and Obama's?

What else do you agree with McCain on that you disagree with Obama?

This thread is not the place for me to openly discuss all my political beliefs, nor is it where I care to open them up for scrutiny for the whole of the internet. I am not a greatly political person, and I do not want to debate 'the issues' here. I may be called cowardly, bigoted, stupid, selfish, lazy, or moronic, but I really don't want to do a point-by-point defense of my political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, as Zod and others would have me do.

Anybody who wants to find me on AIM, I'd be welcome to chat, and tell you exactly what I think. But not here.

[Patrick Degan]

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure.

Nevermind that drilling isn't going to do dick for solving our energy situation. And as for the Gimp's nuclear stance, it's always easy to promise you're going to build 45 new nuclear power stations. Bush promised support for nuclear and "clean coal" as well, but we see his maladministration's policies have slanted heavily towards taxpayer subsidisation for Big Oil, and with no actual demand for delivery either but the blind faith that the good ol' Invisible Hand™ will work its magick.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I am honestly quite disgusted at McCain's VP pick. I know I'm coming from a different standpoint but I could never vote for such a bigoted cunt. McCain's choice only reinforces my impression that whatever 'Maverick' ideals he had are now just empty political points he's using to try to win the election.

Yeah, what kind of a woman vetoes her own party's legislation to make sure gays get full benefits from partner status, then ignores her church when they have a 'pray the gay away' conference?

Whatever reasons prompted her to veto the bill, it does not change the fact she (and McCain) publicly supports the positions of the religious right (anti-feminist, anti-gay, pro-creationism, etc.) whereas Obama's public positions do not at all reflect the ideals of his radical-pro-African Christian counterparts. Yet you claim that the relationship between both parties' candidates and their respective radical supporters are equal. How you can not see this major discrepancy between the two cases is beyond me.

[CaptJodan]

The reason you "keep quiet" about it is that you know any arguments you bring up in defense of the McCain ticket would get skewered, and you're the kind of moron who thinks that just means we're "biased" so there's no point bringing it up.

The reason I 'keep quiet' is I don't want to have to defend what I believe all hours of the day and night.

Who the fuck said you have to stay up 24/7 in order to make an argument, fucktard?

I suspect he's referring to the fact that 50 people post at him for his views and he can't get to all the responses, such as what is happening now (with good reason).

I wouldn't mind seeing his views or the justification of why he wants to vote McCain laid bare. If he's afraid of getting dog piled, perhaps he would debate the issues in the Coliseum (if the board gods deemed it worthy).

Energy policy

I have a difficult time believing that McCain will actually put a lot of effort into alternative energy so long as the oil continues to flow from somewhere. Bush claims to want alternative energy sources, yet I don't see him pushing very hard for them. It sounds to me like McCain simply wants to keep drilling until we run out, at which point its the problem of someone else.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah, there has been lots of talk about nuclear power, manned lunar and mars missions etc. no action, no nothing except for give big companies unlimined power.

[General Zod]

This thread is not the place for me to openly discuss all my political beliefs, nor is it where I care to open them up for scrutiny for the whole of the internet. I am not a greatly political person, and I do not want to debate 'the issues' here. I may be called cowardly, bigoted, stupid, selfish, lazy, or moronic, but I really don't want to do a point-by-point defense of my political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, as Zod and others would have me do.

You honestly expected any other response? What the fuck is so bad about asking people who support a candidate to justify what makes them a superior candidate? So far all you've done is parrot McSame's talking points without even bothering to elaborate why they're superior.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You honestly expected any other response?

No, I didn't. I expected this response, which I didn't want directed at me. Someone asked if anyone on this board liked McCain or Palin, and I said yes, that I liked them both, expecting this response.

This will be my final response on this:
I believe McCain will be a better President than Obama.
He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.
I believe he has a good head on his shoulders, and the experience to know when he's wrong.
I think he'll work with whoever will help him to get things done, regardless of party or pride, and I think he'll try to improve America in the ways that I personally feel are best.

I'll keep reading what you guys post, and if I get my mind changed, I'll let you know.

[General Zod]

No, I didn't. I expected this response, which I didn't want directed at me. Someone asked if anyone on this board liked McCain or Palin, and I said yes, that I liked them both, expecting this response.

This will be my final response on this:
I believe McCain will be a better President than Obama.
He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.
I believe he has a good head on his shoulders, and the experience to know when he's wrong.
I think he'll work with whoever will help him to get things done, regardless of party or pride, and I think he'll try to improve America in the ways that I personally feel are best.

I'll keep reading what you guys post, and if I get my mind changed, I'll let you know.

In other words, you're basing things on "Gut instinct" and Republican sound bytes as opposed to any logical reason.

[Big Phil]

I like McCain on energy, specifically oil drilling and expanding nuclear infrastructure. I also like him on defense, though I'm not thrilled that he seems to be up for picking a fight with Russia.

Mainly, I like his energy policies, and I think those issues are going to be the most important to our country in the next ten years.

What is the difference between McCain's energy policy and Obama's?

What else do you agree with McCain on that you disagree with Obama?

This thread is not the place for me to openly discuss all my political beliefs, nor is it where I care to open them up for scrutiny for the whole of the internet. I am not a greatly political person, and I do not want to debate 'the issues' here.

Why are you on a debate board if you don't want to debate the issues?

I may be called cowardly, bigoted, stupid, selfish, lazy, or moronic, but I really don't want to do a point-by-point defense of my political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, as Zod and others would have me do.

I don't really care what Zod wants you to do, I asked you a simple question. What's the difference between Obama and McCain's energy plans?

For that matter, you could just say "I agree with John McCain's vision for America" and leave it at that. At least that would be some sort of reason for why you support McCain, even if it is simple-minded and self-destructive. So far you've offered little evidence that you are using your brain, and are sounding more like a typical Republican sheep, chanting USA! USA! USA! and not listening to the other side.

Christ, even Bill O'Reilly had the guts to listen to Obama; you've closed your mind entirely...

[Durandal]

He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.

Would you say that you agree or disagree with McCain's moral choice to air this attack ad?

[Big Phil]

I understand you've already said you won't respond, but I'll still comment and ask questions anyway.

I believe McCain will be a better President than Obama.

Why?

He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.

This is the first solid argument I've heard you make for why you support McCain. It's completely subjective, and so hard to argue one way or the other, but at least it's a reason.

I believe he has a good head on his shoulders, and the experience to know when he's wrong.

Subjective again, but based on what?

I think he'll work with whoever will help him to get things done, regardless of party or pride

Well, history is on your side here. McCain does have a record of working at odds with his own party occasionally.

, and I think he'll try to improve America in the ways that I personally feel are best.

How so? How do you think America can best be improved, and how is McCain going to accomplish this? You've mentioned Energy and Defense, but is there anything else you think he's right about? And on Energy and Defense, what specifically do you like about McCain? And if you do respond, please don't say "he's a war hero," "he's a veteran," or "he has experience." Give concrete examples of positions and policies you agree with.

[Guardsman Bass]

You honestly expected any other response?

No, I didn't. I expected this response, which I didn't want directed at me. Someone asked if anyone on this board liked McCain or Palin, and I said yes, that I liked them both, expecting this response.

This will be my final response on this:
I believe McCain will be a better President than Obama.

Many of us disagree, but we try to offer reasons here for why we believe so.

He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.

Weird question, but do you want a President who is more likely to make "moral choices"? Obviously, you don't want some piece of scum whose going to wiretap the opposition, be corrupt as fuck, or seize power in a coup'de'tat, but you generally want a president who will make choices that are the best for the country, with morality only playing a role in discriminating between otherwise viable options.

As for "moral values", well - who is more moral: the man who has been married to his first wife for nearly twenty years, or the guy who immediately ditched his first wife and ran off and married a woman nearly young enough to be his daughter when he got back from Vietnam?

I believe he has a good head on his shoulders, and the experience to know when he's wrong.

He also seems to take an infernally long time to get things right. Notice how he had to have a complete fuck-up that nearly took him out of the race back in 2007 to get his campaign in gear.

[Tribun]

I find it disturbing that seeming every media in the US now has jumped on the "Obama-the-loser"-train and praising McCain into the sky. And its suspicious since a week before, they wrote about the great Obama and how he is the future.

So, kids, what have we learned today?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I find it disturbing that seeming every media in the US now has jumped on the "Obama-the-loser"-train and praising McCain into the sky. And its suspicious since a week before, they wrote about the great Obama and how he is the future.

So, kids, what have we learned today?

That the media likes to make everything drammatic, and wants to keep the race appearing close. McCain is 'surging ahead' now, so in another week when he falls asleep at a benefit, or Obama gets a really good one-liner into the news cycle and the numbers shift back the other way, Obama can be 'Rallying a comeback!'

Its kinda like Citizen Kane... I think.

[Superman]

It's really hard for me to see an evangelical Christian type justify their allegiance to the Republican party without thinking "yeah right, it's just because of religion." Is that fair? Probably not, but I was raised in an evangelical church where I saw a lot of this firsthand. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that fundamentalists don't put their religious beliefs, which include an aggressive plan to proselytize, ahead of anyone or anything else, including what's best for the nation? And the spooky part is that they make up a sizable chunk of the voting population. I really think that that most Christian right wingers would even elect someone like Adolf Hitler if he happened to be the one current anti-choice candidate.

Of course not all Republicans are religious fundamentalist types, but most don't seem to have a problem with mixing religion into politics. I have a big problem with it.

[Darth Wong]

This thread is not the place for me to openly discuss all my political beliefs, nor is it where I care to open them up for scrutiny for the whole of the internet.

Clearly not, since you threw a bunch of talking points at me, I critiqued them, and when you ran out of stock answers, you simply ignored me. It's not as if you were getting dogpiled by ten people; you didn't even get in a half-dozen short posts before you walked away and said "no mas!"

I am not a greatly political person, and I do not want to debate 'the issues' here. I may be called cowardly, bigoted, stupid, selfish, lazy, or moronic, but I really don't want to do a point-by-point defense of my political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, as Zod and others would have me do.

Of course not, because your "points" are evasive bullshit.

[Knife]

Meh, I could understand if he, for example, said he was a fiscal conservative and thus wanted to vote for the fiscal conservative candidate. But I don't see how you can look at McCain and say he was a fiscal conservative, nor any of the current crop of Republicans.

Or perhaps a social conservative, though McCain pretty much spat in the face of that many times over, which is why he has Palin now, to pretty up that side of the base. But then, a social conservative would have to look at all the issues they have and didn't get addressed with a republican president and for most of Bush's term, a republican congress. What do they think McCain and Palin will actually be able to do for them?

[General Zod]

What do they think McCain and Palin will actually be able to do for them?

The problem here is you're assuming they're actually paying attention to the issues or doing anything more than listening to the speeches and waiting to hear whether or not McCain/Palin are spouting off sound-bytes that they agree with.