Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 08:52 PM

Well it goes back to federalism. You have to win a majority of the states to win.

It forces a President to have broader appeal.

I B Hankering · 01-04-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well it goes back to federalism. You have to win a majority of the states to win.

It forces a President to have broader appeal.

The real problem; however, is that some states split their electoral vote to match the popular vote.

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The real problem; however, is that some states split their electoral vote to match the popular vote.

I prefer the no split approach.

I B Hankering · 01-04-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I prefer the no split approach.

I agree.

discreetgent · 01-04-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well it goes back to federalism. You have to win a majority of the states to win.

It forces a President to have broader appeal.

You do not need to win the majority of states. In theory you can win the 270 needed electoral votes by winning 11 or 12 states.

In terms of real world case: Carter in 1976 won 24 states and DC. Kennedy won 23 states in 1960.

Also if it really meant a President needs broad appeal then Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania would not receive disproportionate attention while NY, California, Texas received almost none during the general election.

discreetgent · 01-04-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The real problem; however, is that some states split their electoral vote to match the popular vote.

Very very few do that and it is uncommon that even in those states it happens. Hawaii, Nebraska are 2 I know of where it can happen.

I B Hankering · 01-04-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Very very few do that and it is uncommon that even in those states it happens. Hawaii, Nebraska are 2 I know of where it can happen.

And Maine. I thought there were more - about six, but I was wrong.

Sisyphus · 01-04-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It's really just cheap entertainment for the masses, right?

Nah...that's not exactly what I meant. Simply that I was a tad more idealistic in my collegiate days. I thought this shit REALLY made a difference...so it was important to understand how it worked. THAT kind of...what was I thincking....

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

How does this surprise anyone. Obamacare was a cram down. A blatant balls to the wall political deal that the Dems had to use every parliamentary edge they could think of to get it pushed through. Even with control of the WH and both sides of Congress. And it surprises you that the other team doesn't let it lie?

That ain't the way this country works. We don't enact major legislation without some sense of concensus. Obamacare was a swansong for the tired lefties of the 60's. It won't last.

Surprise me? No... Disgust me? Yes... Characterize it as a "cram down" all you wish. That's been the short-end's view of many a ground-breaking piece of legislation. The Civil Rights Act was filibustered....the Department of Education was neutered from jump-street, etc, etc...

This just seems to me the most blatant attempt to refuse to "let it lie" & works to legitimize the view point that job 1 of every switch of party control is to undo what's just been done.

Might be satisfying to the partisans but I fail to see that it accomplishes much or moves the country forward. Just more & more polarization....

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Surprise me? No... Disgust me? Yes... Characterize it as a "cram down" all you wish. That's been the short-end's view of many a ground-breaking piece of legislation. The Civil Rights Act was filibustered....the Department of Education was neutered from jump-street, etc, etc...

This just seems to me the most blatant attempt to refuse to "let it lie" & works to legitimize the view point that job 1 of every switch of party control is to undo what's just been done.

Might be satisfying to the partisans but I fail to see that it accomplishes much or moves the country forward. Just more & more polarization....

Well I was more disgusted by that sausage manufacturing process that went into passing that PoS. It was a disgrace. They couldn't sell the fucking thing on its merits (it doesn't have any -- just political taking/give away) so they had to bribe people to sign on.

The "ground breaking" legislation you mentioned all involved votes from both sides of the aisle. Not one side saying "fuck you", which is what happened with Obamacare. Thats why it won't stick. The country said "fuck you" back and threw their ass out. If you live by that crap you die by it.

Enjoy the next 2 years.

discreetgent · 01-04-2011, 09:51 PM

See first post: it will be interesting lol The veto pen still works.

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 09:57 PM

Yeah, but it wont work when he gets a HHS bill that has no money for implementing Obamacare and vetoing it doesnt shut down anything anyone gives a shit about. The mistake Newt made was trying to force Slick Willie to sign an Omnibus bill. Divide and conquer baby!

Its going to be like watching a 3 dimensional chess match.

Sisyphus · 01-04-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well I was more disgusted by that sausage manufacturing process that went into passing that PoS. It was a disgrace. They couldn't sell the fucking thing on its merits (it doesn't have any -- just political taking/give away) so they had to bribe people to sign on.

[Channeling Michael Irvin]

Come on, man!!! Next to me...you may be the most cynical bastard here. Don't act like this was your FIRST trip to the sausage factory....

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The "ground breaking" legislation you mentioned all involved votes from both sides of the aisle. Not one side saying "fuck you", which is what happened with Obamacare. Thats why it won't stick. The country said "fuck you" back and threw their ass out. If you live by that crap you die by it.

Enjoy the next 2 years.

I haven't enjoyed what passes for politics in this country for a VERY long time. When you're 8 years old & you have to ask people what an, "un-indicted co-consipiractor" is & why the President is one...it's ALL down hill from there...

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discreetgent

You do not need to win the majority of states. In theory you can win the 270 needed electoral votes by winning 11 or 12 states.

Okay a majority on a population weighted basis. happy?

Sisyphus · 01-04-2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The mistake Newt made was trying to force Slick Willie to sign an Omnibus bill. Divide and conquer baby!

Its going to be like watching a 3 dimensional chess match.

Hesus Christo! This from a man repulsed by the sausage factory.....

pjorourke · 01-04-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Come on, man!!! Next to me...you may be the most cynical bastard here. Don't act like this was your FIRST trip to the sausage factory....

Sometimes it even turns my stomach. This was one of the worst "fuck you"'s I've seen in 40 some years of watching those bastards.

Quote:

When you're 8 years old & you have to ask people what an, "un-indicted co-consipiractor" is & why the President is one...it's ALL down hill from there...

Word!