Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,595 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

markofbane wrote:


Or, what I think is most likely, is perhaps using the New York Stock Exchange as any sort of indicator of the overall health of the economy is sheer folly and wrong-minded, especially since the value of the stocks is no longer based on anything remotely reflecting the value of the company they represent.

I agree with everything you said, but this especially.

The stock market is, in the end, a poor indicator of economic wellbeing. It is, at best, a good windsock for the psychology of frequent stock traders. It reflects, not influences, the earnings and the expectations of the earnings of companies.

It's a remark about banks, but I think the speculative nature of stock prices makes it apropos there as well: David Mitchell.


houstonderek wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
if the dramatic increase on raids of dispensaries and growers in Cali since he took office is any indication.
Hopefully it isn't.

I tend to look at what people have done to predict their future actions. I hope beyond hope that Obama really is what people think and the first four years were just a show to get re-elected, but I'm not holding my breath.

Though I will probably be holding my nose.

"Don't sleep on Barry O!"

The good news of the result is we can look forward to 4 more years of Key & Peele!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:


I tend to look at what people have done to predict their future actions. I hope beyond hope that Obama really is what people think and the first four years were just a show to get re-elected, but I'm not holding my breath.

Though I will probably be holding my nose.

The popular theory I hear is this: Obama has to enforce federal law. It's irresponsible as an executive not to. By cracking down he's actually helping popular opinion of the legalization of (at least medicinal) marijuana. The result is what we saw last night, which will hopefully prompt a supreme court case or a reevaluation of marijuana's classification.

*shrug*

I'd very much like to see either be true, but we'll see. The drug war is losing all popularity and people - not just users - are beginning to see the light in great numbers.


pres man wrote:
The good news of the result is we can look forward to 4 more years of Key & Peele!

/vomit


meatrace wrote:
Obama has to enforce federal law. It's irresponsible as an executive not to.

LOL

Yeah, it is not like Obama has ever ordered the justice department to ignore the law before.

LOL


pres man wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Obama has to enforce federal law. It's irresponsible as an executive not to.

LOL

Yeah, it is not like Obama has ever ordered the justice department to ignore the law before.

LOL

You act like those things are mutually exclusive. He was irresponsible there, too. It's a baffling conundrum. I'm decidedly ambivalent about the executive choosing which laws to enforce, even if the law is a bad one, because it sets the precedent of good ones not being enforced either. I mean, DOMA for example, is a heaping pile of poo. Then again, laws is laws.

/head asplode


Krensky wrote:

* Sniff..

Libertarian?

* Hides.

It should be noted that Johnson has gotten the most votes that any Libertarian has gotten. While not a relevant factor in this election, it might mean a growing interest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or just a growing disdain for the Republican mainstream. It should be obvious that there's no place in the Republican party for libertarians any longer.


Has a third Party or independent ever taken a seat in the last 50 years in the US?

In Australia the Conservative Party (they call themselves the Liberal Party) have to form a coalition with the Country Party (They call themselves the National Party), We have 3 independants and 1 Green that have formed a coalition with the Centre (right or left depending on the faction in power) Labor Party.

This leaves the Labor Party in charge of the lower house and able to form Government.

The Greens hold the Balance of power in the senate (our upper house) our Senate is split between the major parties reasonably evenly.


SuperSlayer wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Sorry to offend you Obamabot, but I was only quoting Chuck Norris and adding my own flavor to it.
Everyone who didn't vote your way is a robot? Classy.
I'm referring to those who voted without even looking at the issues. Yes Obama has a high charisma score, but just because you like him should not be the sole reason to vote like millions did. There is issues and millions of people out there are completely clueless about them. By the way I noticed the stock market dropped today, not good news.

The stock market also went up on Hitler's birthday, but I'm pretty sure we'd agree that would be a ridiculous correlation.. People read too much into daily stock movements.


There are 2 independents in the US Senate IIRC and they may be a few in the House.


pres man wrote:
There are 2 independents in the US Senate IIRC and they may be a few in the House.

But neither of them is attached to any real third party. Bernie Sanders of Vermont describes himself as a democratic socialist, but runs as an independent.

Joe Lieberman, after losing the Democratic primary, ran on the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Amusingly the CT for Lieberman party was later hijacked and he was kicked out.

I don't believe there are currently any independents in the House. It may be harder to be elected to the House as an independent since the parties design the districts they represent. Bernie Sanders was in the House as an Independent before he ran for the Senate, but Vermont only has one House district, so it can't be shaped for partisan advantage.


Since Senators are voted for on a state level and, as jeff says, the parties can design the districts they represent (gerrymandering, etc.), does anyone else think it's ironic that the Senate is the voice of the people?


meatrace wrote:
Since Senators are voted for on a state level and, as jeff says, the parties can design the districts they represent (gerrymandering, etc.), does anyone else think it's ironic that the Senate is the voice of the people?

I thought it was the House that had districts, whereas Senators represent the entire state, no?


Im pretty sure that the senate was supposed to be the voice of the states. I could be wrong, though.

Edit. Bugley threw down an eggshell full of smokepowder and ninjad me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


It's all because they didn't nominate a true conservative. Next time it'll be Santorum all around!!!

I really hope you guys start working on whatever that magic plan was to get rid of the NDAA and other executive over-reaches, then.


Actually, he was quite civil.

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Sorry Guys, its FOUR MORE YEARS
Be nice Dingo... Display some manners and a little respect.


Don't hate, love and tolerate!

houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

So to sum up the night's results:

  • We reelected President Obama. He didn't even need Ohio.
  • Elizabeth Warren won.
  • Tammy Baldwin won.
  • Joe Donnelley won.
  • Claire McCaskill won.
  • Multiple states voted to legalize recreational marijuana.
  • Same-sex marriage was legalized by popular vote for the first time.
  • California voted to fund its schools and to fix Three Strikes.
  • Puerto Rico voted to move forward with the process of becoming the country's 51st state.
  • Nate Silver correctly predicted every state's vote - 50 out of 50 right.

It was a good night to be a Democrat.

Other than Elizabeth Warren (I can't excuse lying about your heritage to gain advantage - and, stop, the Cherokee Nation already did the research and called her out as a liar), and the last item (who cares?) I can agree with the rest of this being a good thing. Yes, Obama will be marginally better than Romney, but it won't make any "liberal" start protesting illegal wars or the erosion of the Bill of Rights that hasn't already been doing so. So, I guess that's a very grudgingly given agreement. With many asterisks.


So Dems, now that you have won this awesome victory, you should celebrate. Why not treat yourself to a miniature kickstarter? Ask yourself, what would Obama do? =D


pres man wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
if the dramatic increase on raids of dispensaries and growers in Cali since he took office is any indication.
Hopefully it isn't.

I tend to look at what people have done to predict their future actions. I hope beyond hope that Obama really is what people think and the first four years were just a show to get re-elected, but I'm not holding my breath.

Though I will probably be holding my nose.

"Don't sleep on Barry O!"

The good news of the result is we can look forward to 4 more years of Key & Peele!

I miss chocolate news.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Im pretty sure that the senate was supposed to be the voice of the states. I could be wrong, though.

Edit. Bugley threw down an eggshell full of smokepowder and ninjad me.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The senate was there to be a check on the masses so they don't vote crazy things in.

NOW, however, who is elected to the Senate is a better litmus test of the overall population of a state because EVERYONE votes for their senator. Gerrymandering has mad it so that the parties and the establishment have control on who gets voted in more.

So, at this point in time, the Senate is the voice of the people. Which makes it ironic because that's the opposite of its original intent.


ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.

That is indeed my biggest problem with the Senate Vs. House. It could also be behind the hipster boom in metropolis areas. Lord knows they've taken over Williamsburg...


TheWhiteknife wrote:

ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.

Rural voters are under-represented in what sense? That there's more rural land so they have less representation per square mile? Geography is irrelevant. If there are more metropolitan citizens than rural ones, then the metropolitan ones have more sway but the same representation.

And actually, overall rural voters are heavily over-represented in the Senate. Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. The states with the lower populations tend to be more rural, so rural voters have a larger chunk of their Senator.
Each Wyoming Senator represents 284K people. Each Californian Senator represents almost 19 million.
This has a lot to do with the Senate's problems. Given Republican dominance in rural areas, they have far more influence than the population they represent. Combine that with the filibuster and Senators representing a small minority of the country can cause gridlock.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.

Rural voters are under-represented in what sense? That there's more rural land so they have less representation per square mile? Geography is irrelevant. If there are more metropolitan citizens than rural ones, then the metropolitan ones have more sway but the same representation.

And actually, overall rural voters are heavily over-represented in the Senate. Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. The states with the lower populations tend to be more rural, so rural voters have a larger chunk of their Senator.
Each Wyoming Senator represents 284K people. Each Californian Senator represents almost 19 million.
This has a lot to do with the Senate's problems. Given Republican dominance in rural areas, they have far more influence than the population they represent. Combine that with the filibuster and Senators representing a small minority of the country can cause gridlock.

In the words of many software developers, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thunderspirit wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.

Rural voters are under-represented in what sense? That there's more rural land so they have less representation per square mile? Geography is irrelevant. If there are more metropolitan citizens than rural ones, then the metropolitan ones have more sway but the same representation.

And actually, overall rural voters are heavily over-represented in the Senate. Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. The states with the lower populations tend to be more rural, so rural voters have a larger chunk of their Senator.
Each Wyoming Senator represents 284K people. Each Californian Senator represents almost 19 million.
This has a lot to do with the Senate's problems. Given Republican dominance in rural areas, they have far more influence than the population they represent. Combine that with the filibuster and Senators representing a small minority of the country can cause gridlock.

In the words of many software developers, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

It was when they actually had to be speaking to fillibuster. Gone are the days of reading the phone book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to see that I am not the only revolutionarily-minded trade unionist who used photography to troll online Democratic shills:

From an e-mail from my friend, a union field rep and convicted Arab terrorist:

Spoiler:
"The f%$$in Dems on Facebook were pissing me off so much about third party voters and non-voters being "morons" that I went to vote just to vote for exclusively socialist third party candidates and write-ins so I could photograph the ballot, post on FB and tell all the Dems to kiss my ass. I mean that's what pisses me off the most about Democratic Party true believers-- even more than the lame excuses they always make for the Dems (which is, predictably, it's all the GOP's fault), is the sheer f#@%in arrogance and hostility towards any honest critic. Lesser-of-two-evilism voting is excusable if it's honest, but with these folks it never is, and if you dare to point out how the Dem Party keeps f+!!ing over its own supporters you're an idiot and a traitor. I really f!%#in hate these people, and hope that if there's ever a revolution they get what's coming to them.

I just cannot understand why so many people are incapable of presenting things in anything other than binary terms. Like the concept of critical/conditional support is completely foreign to them. My union gets it-- they tell the membership "look Obama sucks but we gotta keep Romney from winning because of the GOP's highly aggressive union busting strategy", but we're such a minority when it comes to addressing s~~@ honestly during elections and maintaining independence from the Dem Party. Why can't the other unions see this? It's not like they have to completely abandon supporting Dems, just keep some critical distance is all, christ-- why can't they see not doing so is only harming them?"


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

ah ok, i getcha now.

Edit- but is that not still in keeping with the original intent? Look at PA or NY. Large metropolitan areas while most of the rest of the state's geography is rural. In the Senate, its mostly the metropoli that decides who gets in, with the rural voters under-represented. In the House, they at least get a voice. I agree that gerrymandering is wrong (Look at the shapes of some districts, they dont even try to hide tht theyre gerrymandering.), but Im not convinced that the Senate gives you the ultimate snapshot of the beliefs of the population of a given state. But, yes, the Senate is a better representation of the overall population of a state, just as it always was supposed to be. They're just voted on instead of selected now. Its one of the failings of democracy. that 51% of the people can over-ride the other 49%.

Rural voters are under-represented in what sense? That there's more rural land so they have less representation per square mile? Geography is irrelevant. If there are more metropolitan citizens than rural ones, then the metropolitan ones have more sway but the same representation.

And actually, overall rural voters are heavily over-represented in the Senate. Each state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. The states with the lower populations tend to be more rural, so rural voters have a larger chunk of their Senator.
Each Wyoming Senator represents 284K people. Each Californian Senator represents almost 19 million.
This has a lot to do with the Senate's problems. Given Republican dominance in rural areas, they have far more influence than the population they represent. Combine that with the filibuster and Senators representing a small minority of the country can cause gridlock.

Yes, and Rhode Island has as much say in the Senate as Texas, what goes around comes around.

Anyway, I think the point about the gerrymandering and representation was something like the following. Let's say a state is 25% rural and 75% urban (we'll ignore suburban for simplicity's sake). Now let's assume the state has 4 Representatives. It is possible to draw the lines so that each district is 25% rural and 75% urban, in which case the rural community would have 0% representation (being beaten by the urban voters), or the lines could be drawn so that 1 district is almost 100% rural and the other three are almost 100% urban. In this case, you would have the rural community represented proportionally to their population in the state.

Of course this is just a very simplistic example, but I think this was the point that was trying to be gotten.


Of course to use the NY example, districting wouldn't help much. You've only got two Senators and the population is ~90% urban. You could have one for NYC and some of the surrounding areas and the other would still be 80% urban. That's where the people live.

PA isn't as extreme. It looks like about a quarter of PA's population is rural. You could have 1 entirely urban senator and 1 split 50/50.

Without more Senators per state, there really isn't much you can do. If you want to call that underrepresented, I guess you can.


thejeff wrote:

Of course to use the NY example, districting wouldn't help much. You've only got two Senators and the population is ~90% urban. You could have one for NYC and some of the surrounding areas and the other would still be 80% urban. That's where the people live.

PA isn't as extreme. It looks like about a quarter of PA's population is rural. You could have 1 entirely urban senator and 1 split 50/50.

Without more Senators per state, there really isn't much you can do. If you want to call that underrepresented, I guess you can.

I thought we were talking about Representatives versus Senators?


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Of course to use the NY example, districting wouldn't help much. You've only got two Senators and the population is ~90% urban. You could have one for NYC and some of the surrounding areas and the other would still be 80% urban. That's where the people live.

PA isn't as extreme. It looks like about a quarter of PA's population is rural. You could have 1 entirely urban senator and 1 split 50/50.

Without more Senators per state, there really isn't much you can do. If you want to call that underrepresented, I guess you can.

I thought we were talking about Representatives versus Senators?

We're segueing. :)

Of course the real answer is that in theory, the more representatives you have the closer you can match the will of the people. In practice, since we draw districts for partisan gain, that gets thwarted pretty easily.


It's almost as if there should be federal oversight - with actual teeth and the ability to put people in prision! - for such matters to prevent gerrymandering. Also, why the flying fornication aren't there stronger, enforceable rules about federal elections? Why does one state have all vote-swapping electronic machines owned by cronies of a candidate, while another does it by dropping buttons in a jar or something idiotic. The actual regulations on how elections are run are determined, often, BY COUNTY not even by state. It's a clusterf@!!.

Also, while I'm foaming at the mouth, why the crap do we vote on Tuesdays in November?! This is a post-industrial society, not an agrarian one in which these 'traditions' were originally formed. For chrissakes how about elections open for a week, from Sunday to Saturday. Say what you will about Florida (and there's a LOT of crap to give them) but they have a very good, very efficient early voting system.


meatrace wrote:

It's almost as if there should be federal oversight - with actual teeth and the ability to put people in prision! - for such matters to prevent gerrymandering. Also, why the flying fornication aren't there stronger, enforceable rules about federal elections? Why does one state have all vote-swapping electronic machines owned by cronies of a candidate, while another does it by dropping buttons in a jar or something idiotic. The actual regulations on how elections are run are determined, often, BY COUNTY not even by state. It's a clusterf@~@.

Also, while I'm foaming at the mouth, why the crap do we vote on Tuesdays in November?! This is a post-industrial society, not an agrarian one in which these 'traditions' were originally formed. For chrissakes how about elections open for a week, from Sunday to Saturday. Say what you will about Florida (and there's a LOT of crap to give them) but they have a very good, very efficient early voting system.

Because we're operating under a Constitution written more than 200 years ago by people who were far more focused on the power and privileges of their states than on actually making the country work.

It's hard to change, especially when there might be partisan advantage in keeping it the way it is.


Oh, jeff.
I understand all that stuff.
I meant "WHY?!" in more an existential cry of frustration sense.
And, like, "it's idiotic that things aren't better, we're America!!!"
/sigh

But yeah, this is why I have a hearty guffaw at the expense of "constitutional conservatives", because that's just code for "living in the past" man! :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

It's almost as if there should be federal oversight - with actual teeth and the ability to put people in prision! - for such matters to prevent gerrymandering. Also, why the flying fornication aren't there stronger, enforceable rules about federal elections? Why does one state have all vote-swapping electronic machines owned by cronies of a candidate, while another does it by dropping buttons in a jar or something idiotic. The actual regulations on how elections are run are determined, often, BY COUNTY not even by state. It's a clusterf$+*.

Because it's one of those things that has traditionally been set up as something falling under "State's Rights". There is a ton of vested interest in keeping the process just as it is.

Not that there isn't federal oversight at all. A Republican poll watcher was caught filling blank spaces in ballots for Republican candidates. She's facing a $150,000 fine and up to 5 years of Federal prison time.


States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Not an invalid argument.

Yes, there's a vested interest in keeping the status quo — ask anyone familiar with the old Daley Machine of 1960s Chicago or County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of Waukesha, Wisconsin's shenanigans over the past several election cycles.

But the problem is that Federal elections coincide with the state contests, meaning any Federal standards would by definition infringe on a state's right to conduct that election in the manner which that state sees fit. (Even if said process involves, say, counting the number of buttons dropped into a jar or trolling about the cemeteries for deceased voters or holding ballots up to the ballot counter's forehead a la the Amazing Creskin or "finding" more than 14,000 votes or whatever.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Except that, technically, there's no such thing as a federal election.

Representatives are elected by a small portion of a single state.
Senators are (currently) elected by an entire state.
Presidents are elected by delegates (electors) choose in whatever way a state chooses. This is currently by some form of election for all fifty states.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bah! The electoral process is a bunch of bullshiznit as this well-reasonsed and irrefutable video proves.

Special Comrade Anklebiter moment at 2:17.

Vive le Galt!


Krensky wrote:
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Except that, technically, there's no such thing as a federal election.

Representatives are elected by a small portion of a single state.
Senators are (currently) elected by an entire state.
Presidents are elected by delegates (electors) choose in whatever way a state chooses. This is currently by some form of election for all fifty states.

I mean elections for federally held positions. President, congress, senate.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Krensky wrote:
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Except that, technically, there's no such thing as a federal election.

Representatives are elected by a small portion of a single state.
Senators are (currently) elected by an entire state.
Presidents are elected by delegates (electors) choose in whatever way a state chooses. This is currently by some form of election for all fifty states.

I mean elections for federally held positions. President, congress, senate.

I know what you meant, and I agree it's a disgrace.

But it's also a fact that there's a strong argument that it's solely a purvue of the states.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thunderspirit wrote:
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Not an invalid argument.

Yes, there's a vested interest in keeping the status quo — ask anyone familiar with the old Daley Machine of 1960s Chicago or County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of Waukesha, Wisconsin's shenanigans over the past several election cycles.

But the problem is that Federal elections coincide with the state contests, meaning any Federal standards would by definition infringe on a state's right to conduct that election in the manner which that state sees fit. (Even if said process involves, say, counting the number of buttons dropped into a jar or trolling about the cemeteries for deceased voters or holding ballots up to the ballot counter's forehead a la the Amazing Creskin or "finding" more than 14,000 votes or whatever.

Honestly, F!~! States Rights.

We should have federal standards and oversite, mandatory testing and calibration, and required paper trails. Every ballot should be run through at least 2 counting processes, preferably 3. A preliminary result of the first one that can be used for election night results, and then recounts to verify the number afterwards. There should be standard times when polls are open by/to, manditory density of poll locations to prevent people from having to travel excessive distances, and mandatory number of stations/personel density to prevent excessive lines.


I wouldnt be opposed to this.

Andoran

Caineach wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Not an invalid argument.

Yes, there's a vested interest in keeping the status quo — ask anyone familiar with the old Daley Machine of 1960s Chicago or County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of Waukesha, Wisconsin's shenanigans over the past several election cycles.

But the problem is that Federal elections coincide with the state contests, meaning any Federal standards would by definition infringe on a state's right to conduct that election in the manner which that state sees fit. (Even if said process involves, say, counting the number of buttons dropped into a jar or trolling about the cemeteries for deceased voters or holding ballots up to the ballot counter's forehead a la the Amazing Creskin or "finding" more than 14,000 votes or whatever.

Honestly, F%%! States Rights.

We should have federal standards and oversite, mandatory testing and calibration, and required paper trails. Every ballot should be run through at least 2 counting processes, preferably 3. A preliminary result of the first one that can be used for election night results, and then recounts to verify the number afterwards. There should be standard times when polls are open by/to, manditory density of poll locations to prevent people from having to travel excessive distances, and mandatory number of stations/personel density to prevent excessive lines.

"Eff state's rights"???

Right now, that's the ONLY thing keeping GLBT issues and getting rid of the stupid "War on Drugs" moving along. The Feds have this nasty tendency of being in a state of inertia, or passing a dozen laws one existing law already covers. Nothing really happens there.


meatrace wrote:
Also, while I'm foaming at the mouth, why the crap do we vote on Tuesdays in November?! This is a post-industrial society, not an agrarian one in which these 'traditions' were originally formed. For chrissakes how about elections open for a week, from Sunday to Saturday. Say what you will about Florida (and there's a LOT of crap to give them) but they have a very good, very efficient early voting system.

I thought most states now have early voting. I know my state did, I voted 8 days before Nov. 6 (and that was just because I didn't get around to it the weeks before). In and out in 5 minutes, and that was with checking my I.D. and using a touch screen.


houstonderek wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
meatrace wrote:
States rights shouldn't interfere with FEDERAL elections. Alls I'm sayin.

Not an invalid argument.

Yes, there's a vested interest in keeping the status quo — ask anyone familiar with the old Daley Machine of 1960s Chicago or County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of Waukesha, Wisconsin's shenanigans over the past several election cycles.

But the problem is that Federal elections coincide with the state contests, meaning any Federal standards would by definition infringe on a state's right to conduct that election in the manner which that state sees fit. (Even if said process involves, say, counting the number of buttons dropped into a jar or trolling about the cemeteries for deceased voters or holding ballots up to the ballot counter's forehead a la the Amazing Creskin or "finding" more than 14,000 votes or whatever.

Honestly, F%%! States Rights.

We should have federal standards and oversite, mandatory testing and calibration, and required paper trails. Every ballot should be run through at least 2 counting processes, preferably 3. A preliminary result of the first one that can be used for election night results, and then recounts to verify the number afterwards. There should be standard times when polls are open by/to, manditory density of poll locations to prevent people from having to travel excessive distances, and mandatory number of stations/personel density to prevent excessive lines.

"Eff state's rights"???

Right now, that's the ONLY thing keeping GLBT issues and getting rid of the stupid "War on Drugs" moving along. The Feds have this nasty tendency of being in a state of inertia, or passing a dozen laws one existing law already covers. Nothing really happens there.

I think s/he is talking exclusively about voting. Im with her/him there, I wouldnt be opposed to federal standards regarding voting procedures. As long as what is voted upon is still left to the individual states and the federal government only involved itself in the machinery/counting procedure/etc, I would have no beef.


thejeff wrote:


Rural voters are under-represented in what sense?

Not in the actual Senate, in the sense of how they elect the senators from their state. Like you used in your example, California senators each represent about 19 million people. Now when it comes to election time, which areas do you think the candidates attempt to appeal to more? The southern and western parts of the state like the LA and the bay areas or do they go after the much coveted eastern and northern parts like Modoc or Inyo counties? Likewise in PA, I can tell you from exerience that senatorial candidates dont really visit Bedford or Fulton counties, nor do they really address any issues brought up by those counties, because its really Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh/Harrisburg/Altoona/Erie/York that butters their bread.

President Obama actually expressed this quite well in his "religion, guns, and antipathy" speech. Its just people got hung up on that part without really paying attention to the rest of that speech.

Edit: And I would like to point out, that I dont necessarily consider this a bad thing. Afterall the Senate is supposed to be the overall picture of the state. I really dont have a problem with gerrymandering in the House(by either party)either. It pretty much ensures that "conservative" people get represented by "conservatives" and "liberal" people get represented by "liberals". Which provides a pretty decent snapshot of the make-up of the states. Take PA, looking at our reps, its pretty much blue on the outsides and red in the middle, which is fairly accurate.

Unless there is something Im not considering, Ive never really thought upon gerrymandering before. Whats the downside?


TheWhiteknife wrote:


Unless there is something Im not considering, Ive never really thought upon gerrymandering before. Whats the downside?

Gerrymandering encourages house members to move and stay on the far sides of the political spectrums and push out members from the moderate wings of both parties. The conservative districts send the very conservatives and liberals areas send the very liberal. If a person attempts to reach across the aisle to make a deal they may get pushed out in the next primary. Look what happened to Lugar and he was in Senate. The end result is a body with no political middle ground.

The constitution was designed for government by compromise. By pushing out moderates that could make a deal, the gerrymandering is creating an atmosphere that makes it extremely difficult to address a serious problem such as the fiscal cliff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:


Unless there is something Im not considering, Ive never really thought upon gerrymandering before. Whats the downside?

CGP Grey explains it in convenient video form. His scenario refers to previous videos but watching them is informative, but not necessary to understand the specific issues with gerrymandering. Should you be interested: the whole series in order.


I can't say that I've read most of this discussion, but I must say that we're screwed either way. >.> lol.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,595 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.