Indecision 2012

[Jinsai]

I know this sounds misanthropic, but fuck I just can't wait till this is over

but while I'm here

[Sutekh]

but fuck I just can't wait till this is over

It's agony

Anyone know what time GMT the results will be out?

[ambergris]

I wonder which party would benefit from a true national election. One could say for example, that because Californians are now more important than before, they are more likely to vote and so the Democrats can get quite a margin there. On the other hand, maybe republican Californians realize that their vote actually matters and so they vote more. In the end, I think that the Democrats have the advantage because whenever turnout increases, Democrats are favored. And on this board it seems that 'useless' votes go to third parties whereas they would probably go to Obama instead, if they really mattered. But still, the Democratic Party would need a lot of money to support a real national infrastructure.

I think the businessinsider article is not good. In the EU, there are many national elections, and each nation is very keen on receiving agricultural subsidies. As a consequence, there is too much agricultural production in Europe and we destroy surplus production to keep the prices stable. It makes no sense. So the agricultural sector is still (too) important even with national elections. And for local concerns, there is still Congress.
The weather argument is stupid. Ok, bad weather might depress turnout somewhere, so what? It doesn't make each actual vote less important (on the contrary). The article still argues from a state perspective, not a national one. Why should it matter to Ohio when it sends fewer votes? The region "Ohio" is meaningless in a national election.
The 'forces a majority' argument is at least incomplete, and maybe disproven by history. Yes, a third party could keep someone from reaching a popular vote majority. Well, it happened to Clinton, for example, twice! - even with an Electoral College. Also, there were a few elections when no candidate received an Electoral College majority. The Adams vs. Jackson campaign, for example (1820?). So it's not as if the Electoral College magically solves this problem. If anything, a national vote might lead to geographically concentrated third parties, for example, a southern white party, or a hispanic party. But the congressional structure would force these parties into congressional coalitions that more or less resemble the two national parties of today. As long as the first-past-the-post system exists, the 'forces a majority' concern is not a problem. I think.

[allegro]

Nice argument supported by that article you linked to, didja happen to read it or did you just google "why we need the electoral college" because its a fucking stupid one.

I deliberately chose the Schoolhouse Rock version. Are you forgetting context or history? It was established in *1787*.

The Electoral College was designed to insure that the really populated states don't determine a presidential election.

The number of people in congress is also determined by states' population. This country is HUGE. Not just in population but in size.

Again, this stuff was always taught in 7th grade Civics classes; either that stopped or some Americans aren't paying attention

If you aren't American:

Here's our government's explanation: http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ege/about.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ege/index.html

Another, stressing the importance of taking into consideration the HISTORY of the Electoral College: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php

[allegro]

Anyway, since whining about the Electoral College has happened since the olden times but it's not going away, let's get back to this election:

I think Rich Roeper nailed it:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/...a-victory.html

but while I'm here

Haaaaa ha ha ha brilliant.

[aggroculture]

That Romney fake food drive was just horrible. Unbelievable. What a tool.
This whole voting on party lines thing saddens me no end: the guy is simply a bad egg; a bad guy who has made his millions gaming the system and screwing people over, and then hiding his money from fair taxation, and shows no signs of stopping. Even if you are a Republican, he's a bad president for you, even if you are a millionaire and a homophobe.
This system that gives x red states, and y blue states, and a handful of "swing states" that get to decide the fate of the world is fucked.

[allegro]

Sadly, this is still about a BLACK dude in the WHITE house.

And people's blind racism makes them blind to the wolf in sheep's clothing that is Romney.

[Deus Ex Machina]

There's plenty to warp the democratic process, voter disenfranchisement is a thing, and the electoral college is unnecessary. But barring those things, your vote does count. No, you won't get to personally decide the election, nor will you get to cast the deciding vote . . . they'd have to throw out all those opposing votes in order for that to happen; but they count those votes, just like they count yours. Didn't win =/= Didn't count. Even a perfectly functional democracy would require coalition building and compromises, and you still might get outvoted in the end.

[allegro]

FEMALES DIDN'T GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE UNTIL THIS! YOU BET YOUR ASS I ALWAYS VOTE!

[aggroculture]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-argument.html

[Piko]

QUOTE=aggroculture;55037]http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-argument.html[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's a great way to close it. I wonder if I were to go out and rape someone, that'd I'd be able to get off by using religion as my excuse.

If only we lived in a world that actually separated church and state. It turns their minds to mush.

[Jinsai]

There's plenty to warp the democratic process, voter disenfranchisement is a thing, and the electoral college is unnecessary. But barring those things, your vote does count. No, you won't get to personally decide the election, nor will you get to cast the deciding vote . . . they'd have to throw out all those opposing votes in order for that to happen; but they count those votes, just like they count yours. Didn't win =/= Didn't count. Even a perfectly functional democracy would require coalition building and compromises, and you still might get outvoted in the end.

I understand what you are saying... I get the argument, but really, the Electoral College system is a firewall preventing my vote from being counted. There's a reason that the majority of campaign appearances happen in Ohio of all places. We bemoan low voter turnout, but really, maybe if we were able to honestly tell people "your vote will be considered in the final tally" more people would do it!

I'm still going to vote, but I'm more interested in the propositions than choosing the president. That's up to the good people of Ohio, thanks to this dumbfuck system. Maybe I'll vote for the green party. Why the fuck not. Republicans in red states can feel the same way about voting for the libertarian guy, Gary whateverhisnameis. When your vote doesn't count, you might as well jack off with it.

I live in California, so my vote is going to Obama... even if I don't show up to vote... and we wonder why there's such a low voter turnout...

[allegro]

If all the people in California who were going to vote for Obama decided to stay home, instead, and Romney got the most votes in California, then California's electoral votes would go to Romney. This isn't a predetermined vote; it's just that it's "LIKELY" that California will be a blue state. But, weirder things have happened. The candidates are focusing especially on swing states this time because they're not confident about wooing independent voters in all the states.

[Jinsai]

If all the people in California who were going to vote for Obama decided to stay home, instead, and Romney got the most votes in California, then California's electoral votes would go to Romney. This isn't a predetermined vote; it's just that it's "LIKELY" that California will be a blue state. But, weirder things have happened. The candidates are focusing especially on swing states this time because they're not confident about wooing independent voters in all the states.

You know what I mean though. It's condensed. If I want to believe my vote counts, it's as if I'm living in a world where the popular opinion of my state is a deciding factor... which it isn't... because I don't live in a swing state. It's more than "likely" that CA will go blue. I would bet every cent I have to my name, and confidently sit at home on voting day. In California, it is 100% certain that we will go blue.

The point is that my vote will not impact anything in a very obvious way.

[halloween]

There's been a sick robocall going around in massachusetts (as far as I've heard) saying the election is on wednesday. The lengths people will go to....

[allegro]

You know what I mean though. It's condensed. If I want to believe my vote counts, it's as if I'm living in a world where the popular opinion of my state is a deciding factor... which it isn't... because I don't live in a swing state. It's more than "likely" that CA will go blue. I would bet every cent I have to my name, and confidently sit at home on voting day. In California, it is 100% certain that we will go blue.

The point is that my vote will not impact anything in a very obvious way.

Everybody thinks that Illinois is solidly in Obama's camp, but tell that to all the asshole PACs that are advertising every two minutes on TV, here. Seriously, it's crazy, CONSTANT ads saying Obama ruined the country. And i know of quite a few Republicans in Illinois (we had Republican governors for many years). I am never absolutely 100% certain that any state is 'blue.'

Remember, too, though that the Presidential election isn't the ONLY election tomorrow. Certainly there are a lot of other people and issues on the ballot?

[Jinsai]

Remember, too, though that the Presidential election isn't the ONLY election tomorrow. Certainly there are a lot of other people and issues on the ballot?

of course, but that's why I already said that my primary objective when voting is the CA propositions. None of that detracts from how impotent I am when it comes to electing the president of this country, but I'm resigned to accepting the electoral college system, because there's no way it'll change in the foreseeable future.

The stupidity of it still royally pisses me off though.

Still, if you're uncertain, I'll give you 1000 to 1 betting odds on Illinois.

[allegro]

I dunno, I've voted in (cough cough) a LOT of presidential elections and I never felt "impotent." Just exercising my right to vote made me feel that I am a part of the process. No, I cannot change the fact that we have a SHITLOAD of really stupid voters but Obama won 4 years ago and it seemed like a LOT of people thought that would never happen. Sometimes, it's really great when things work out and you knew you were a part of the process. In your case, IMHO, it's great that California is "liberal" enough to bring in the votes for Obama.

I've pretty much decided that Deus is right: That a 3rd party vote just isn't worth attempting. Even if Jill Stein was elected, she'd spend 4 years getting shot down by congress every time she tried to make any kind of change.

[Jinsai]

here's the thing that interests me...

I want to see what the voter turnout % is in Ohio versus the state I live in. If it's even close to comparable, I'd say that maybe my point is a bit unfounded. Otherwise, we're dealing with a blatantly broken system that actively is discouraging people from voting. It's almost enough to turn you into a conspiracy theorist.

Also... if Jill Stein actually won the election, I think her head would explode from shock.

[Piko]

Even if Jill Stein was elected, she'd spend 4 years getting shot down by congress every time she tried to make any kind of change.

Sounds like what happened to Obama in the last four years, and the next four years (if re-elected).

[Magtig]

I've pretty much decided that Deus is right: That a 3rd party vote just isn't worth attempting.

Did I miss something? Deus was arguing that your vote counts, "Didn't win =/= Didn't count." Which would could pretty easily be extrapolated to an argument in favor of voting 3rd party (or any party).

Even if Jill Stein was elected, she'd spend 4 years getting shot down by congress every time she tried to make any kind of change.

The premises here might be true, but the conclusion is weak. Basically it's bad reasoning. If we cast our votes based on what congress did or did not shoot down our political system would be even more of a nightmare.

I've come to the conclusion that since CA is going blue anyway, as all polls indicate, I might as well vote 3rd party. I probably wouldn't make the same choice in a swing state, call it strategic voting I guess, but I happen to agree with Stein on more issues than I do Obama.

[allegro]

Did I miss something?

yes, a while ago

[Magtig]

Ah, okay. I read through that again, but I don't think in California by not voting Obama my vote defaults to Romney. That argument doesn't take the electoral college into account as I mentioned above.

The benefit I see to voting 3rd party is that they have a chance to get more funding if they get enough votes. Having that voice in the debate is important because that person knows damn well they're not going to win, and are therefore not afraid of questions and answers.

[perch]

How soon will first official results come in? Are there any parallel elections (people being payed to ask voters who they voted for) going on and where are those results? Keep in mind it's 7pm here so I am prepared to find out about first results at 2am or something.

[orestes]

First round of polls start closing at 7 pm EST.

[Magtig]

FYI fivethirtyeight only gives Romney a 9% chance of winning the electoral college. So, yeah, the race really isn't all that close by that metric (the one that counts).

[botley]

Stranger things have happened. That's only slightly less likely than flipping a coin three times in a row and seeing heads each time.

[Zimbo]

It is so crazy that this is over. I've been working on a campaign for the last 9+ months and to be so close to the end, is quite surreal. Campaigns are quite an odd beast and not all together bad but not great.

[perch]

First round of polls start closing at 7 pm EST.

Which is 1am over here. Cool, I'll probably wait until then.
Thanks.

[sentient02970]

I didn't pay much attention to what happened in 2008 other than the win. But no chad-punching in any states this year, right? I hope I'm right. Other than maybe punching this Chad: