Election Day in America

[saxitoxin]

Yes Dear I know what you were attempting to say , just a bit baffled because the referendum came about because the SDP refused to compromise, you are simply reinforcing my point so thank you.

There are no referendums scheduled in the U.S. to break it up Yugoslavia-style. There's one on the docket for June 2014 in the UK. Whether or not it passes, the mere fact it's scheduled is a loss for the future viability of the UK as a cohesive state. For something as serious as that to generate the political momentum to be put to a vote is a disaster for a state and describes a divided political life that risks erupting into street violence as seen in Bosnia, Sudan or your Northern Ireland province.

[Ray Rider]

And the Reprocrat machine marches on, unchanged, playing a tune on the fiddle as the country burns.

Has anyone heard how the other parties did besides the Republicans/Democrats?

[Frigidus]

And the Reprocrat machine marches on, unchanged, playing a tune on the fiddle as the country burns.

Has anyone heard how the other parties did besides the Republicans/Democrats?

It's looking like Gary Johnson got a bit over 3% in New Mexico, but other than that it was pretty lacking.

[saxitoxin]

A case study in the Unified War Party's theater of distractions ...

two Republican county commissioners in Pinellas County, Florida, were defeated for re-election after they voted to stop mandatory fluoridation of the county's water supply and were denounced by Democrats as tea party extremists

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/e ... on/1260383

In Crescent City, California, a measure to stop mandatory fluoridation of the city's water supply backed by Democratic councilors passed at public referendum over Republican opposition.

http://www.triplicate.com/News/Local-Ne ... supervisor

[Ray Rider]

And the Reprocrat machine marches on, unchanged, playing a tune on the fiddle as the country burns.

Has anyone heard how the other parties did besides the Republicans/Democrats?

It's looking like Gary Johnson got a bit over 3% in New Mexico, but other than that it was pretty lacking.

That's unfortunate...with two blah candidates whose policies are so similar, this would've been the perfect time for the other parties to gain a larger share of the vote. I guess the Americans must be happy with their deadlock of two disappointing parties though.

[HapSmo19]

I voted for riots....and lost

[Army of GOD]

From what I'm looking at Obama did get the majority popular vote: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/m ... dent/2012/

[muy_thaiguy]

I was hoping someone's pet dog would win the popular vote. Or even a puppy. But politicians murder puppies, so I wouldn't want put it through that. How about Zombie George Washingotn? Even as a member of the undead, he probably would do well as President (again).

[AndyDufresne]

I was watching PBS' coverage, and I think they mentioned this was this is only the 2nd time that 3 presidents in a row were elected to a 2nd term...not since Jefferson?


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... ref=topbar

A little overboard from HuffPo given that he won barely 50% of the popular vote. But his take on the Republican strategy rings true - need to find something else to go to market with in 2014 and 2016.

[saxitoxin]

Meanwhile, a massive sell-off on Wall Street this morning saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average fall a catastrophic 300 points. Every sector took a beating, except major for-profit hospital operators who stand to make a windfall of profits under Obamacare and funneled millions into his campaign ...

Shares of major hospital operators rallied Wednesday as investors bet that the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, will boost those companies' bottom lines. HCA Holdings (HCA), which operates 163 hospitals across the country, was up 7%.

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/11/07/ob ... ls/?iid=EL

Completely coincidentally, of course, HCA Holdings was founded by the father of Senator Bill Frist, who currently owns a plurality of the company's stock. (AKA crony capitalism)

[saxitoxin]

- High School Dropouts favored Obama over Romney by 65%-35%. All other educational classes were split between Obama/Romney.

- People in 500,000+ Cities - favored Obama over Romney by 69%-29%.

- People in Town Less than 10,000 - favored Romney over Obama by 61%-27%.

- In the minority vote, Romney performed best among Hispanics, but still only got 27%.

http://www.ajc.com/news/national/electi ... exit-poll/

[saxitoxin]

Wisconsin votes for Obama, but Republicans take total control of state government.

Wisconsin Republicans have retaken full control of state government, winning majorities in both the Senate and Assembly and erasing Democrats’ gains in last summer's recalls.

Results from Tuesday's elections show Republicans captured an open Senate seat and four incumbent GOP senators fended off challengers, allowing them to capture the majority, and their colleagues in the Assembly easily held onto their advantage in that chamber.

With Republican Gov. Scott Walker in office, the GOP now has complete control in Madison. And the ramifications are huge: Republicans will be able to pass legislation without a single vote from Democrats and Walker should be able to push through the next state budget with ease, setting himself up for his 2014 re-election bid.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Now that they've kneecapped the Democrats in their state, would it be a crafty move for the GOP to amend Wisconsin's electoral vote allocation now to proportionally base it instead of use a winner-take-all system? If just a few of the Republican-run states that voted Obama switched to proportional allocation of their electoral votes, they'd probably have a pretty easy run in 2016.

[Funkyterrance]

Wisconsin votes for Obama, but Republicans take total control of state government.

Wisconsin Republicans have retaken full control of state government, winning majorities in both the Senate and Assembly and erasing Democrats’ gains in last summer's recalls.

Results from Tuesday's elections show Republicans captured an open Senate seat and four incumbent GOP senators fended off challengers, allowing them to capture the majority, and their colleagues in the Assembly easily held onto their advantage in that chamber.

With Republican Gov. Scott Walker in office, the GOP now has complete control in Madison. And the ramifications are huge: Republicans will be able to pass legislation without a single vote from Democrats and Walker should be able to push through the next state budget with ease, setting himself up for his 2014 re-election bid.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Now that they've kneecapped the Democrats in their state, would it be a crafty move for the GOP to amend Wisconsin's electoral vote allocation now to proportionally base it instead of use a winner-take-all system? If just a few of the Republican-run states that voted Obama switched to proportional allocation of their electoral votes, they'd probably have a pretty easy run in 2016.

The world ends in 2012, derp.

[patrickaa317]

Wisconsin votes for Obama, but Republicans take total control of state government.

Wisconsin Republicans have retaken full control of state government, winning majorities in both the Senate and Assembly and erasing Democrats’ gains in last summer's recalls.

Results from Tuesday's elections show Republicans captured an open Senate seat and four incumbent GOP senators fended off challengers, allowing them to capture the majority, and their colleagues in the Assembly easily held onto their advantage in that chamber.

With Republican Gov. Scott Walker in office, the GOP now has complete control in Madison. And the ramifications are huge: Republicans will be able to pass legislation without a single vote from Democrats and Walker should be able to push through the next state budget with ease, setting himself up for his 2014 re-election bid.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Now that they've kneecapped the Democrats in their state, would it be a crafty move for the GOP to amend Wisconsin's electoral vote allocation now to proportionally base it instead of use a winner-take-all system? If just a few of the Republican-run states that voted Obama switched to proportional allocation of their electoral votes, they'd probably have a pretty easy run in 2016.

But then they don't get all the attention during the campaign as the candidates have to work that much harder to get the electoral votes. I do agree that this would be a much better way to do it, it'd give everyone a little more say with their vote.

[saxitoxin]

A quick calculation on the back of a napkin ...

Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin all voted Obama but have legislatures solidly controlled by Republicans. If those three states, in the next four years, moved to begin allocating their electoral votes proportionally - and the voting results were completely identical - in 2016, the Democrat would win by a margin of 285-253, instead of 303-235.

That means the Republicans could put forward a candidate just as awful as Romney, make no other changes, and only be 75,000 votes in Ohio away from winning the election.

[Symmetry]

A quick calculation on the back of a napkin ...

Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin all voted Obama but have legislatures solidly controlled by Republicans. If those three states, in the next four years, moved to begin allocating their electoral votes proportionally - and the voting results were completely identical - in 2016, the Democrat would win by a margin of 285-253, instead of 303-235.

That means the Republicans could put forward a candidate just as awful as Romney, make no other changes, and only be 75,000 votes in Ohio away from winning the election.

Did Florida get called yet?

MIAMI — Not so long ago, in the days of the hanging chad and the butterfly ballot, a nation was held hostage by one state's electoral dysfunction.

On Wednesday, America once again woke up the morning after election day to reports of voters in South Florida standing in line at midnight, tens of thousands of absentee ballots still unopened and uncounted, and no way of knowing who won the state's 29 electoral votes. Unlike Bush vs. Gore in 2000, at least the whole election isn't hanging in the balance, but the question is the same:

Just what is it about Florida and elections, anyway?

"We're such an embarrassment," said Tya Eachus of Miami, a financial analyst who said she waited in line for three hours Tuesday. "It's always a fiasco with us."

With 8.3 million votes in, President Obama held a 46,000 vote lead, about half a percent. Election workers were busy counting thousands of absentee ballots, many of which piled up over the weekend. And, mindful of the confusion of election night 2000, no one seemed eager to call it one way or the other until all the votes were in.

Chris Cate, a spokesman for the state elections department, said results are due by noon Saturday.

The meltdown at some polling places climaxed a long and troubled election season for Florida. There were fights over a proposed voter purge by Gov. Rick Scott, and a hotly contested law pushed through by Republicans in the Legislature that restricted early voting hours.

In Palm Beach County, where the double-sided butterfly ballot baffled voters in 2000, an absentee ballot was misprinted, forcing election workers to recopy thousands of votes by hand. In Pinellas County, 12,000 voters got robo-calls from the elections department mistakenly telling them they had until Wednesday to hand in their mail ballots.

There may have been some fraud in the mix, too: A voter registration operation financed by the Republican National Committee ended in a criminal investigation, with possibly bogus forms showing up in 10 counties.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-florida-20121108,0,5169368.story

There's your boy Chris Cate saying that Florida doesn't have a problem with its elections.

[Metsfanmax]

A quick calculation on the back of a napkin ...

Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin all voted Obama but have legislatures solidly controlled by Republicans. If those three states, in the next four years, moved to begin allocating their electoral votes proportionally - and the voting results were completely identical - in 2016, the Democrat would win by a margin of 285-253, instead of 303-235.

That means the Republicans could put forward a candidate just as awful as Romney, make no other changes, and only be 75,000 votes in Ohio away from winning the election.

I too agree that the NPVIC is the best solution to this problem.

[saxitoxin]

A quick calculation on the back of a napkin ...

Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin all voted Obama but have legislatures solidly controlled by Republicans. If those three states, in the next four years, moved to begin allocating their electoral votes proportionally - and the voting results were completely identical - in 2016, the Democrat would win by a margin of 285-253, instead of 303-235.

That means the Republicans could put forward a candidate just as awful as Romney, make no other changes, and only be 75,000 votes in Ohio away from winning the election.

I too agree that the NPVIC is the best solution to this problem.

That would encourage each state to create the largest electorate possible. Right now Texas and California have no incentive to game their elections systems. This introduces an incentive.

North Dakota and South Dakota each drop their residency requirement from 30 days to 24 hours and introduce 3 days of early voting - California lowers their voting age to 12 - Texas begins allowing state prisoners to vote (the guards serve as both poll workers and observers, of course)

NPVIC is a disastrous idea in the absence of a centralized elections apparatus and uniform standard for federal elections, as in Canada. Which can't be created short of a constitutional amendment.

[Metsfanmax]

That would encourage each state to create the largest electorate possible. Right now Texas and California have no incentive to game their elections systems. This introduces an incentive.

North Dakota and South Dakota each drop their residency requirement from 30 days to 24 hours and introduce 3 days of early voting - California lowers their voting age to 12 - Texas begins allowing state prisoners to vote (the guards serve as poll workers, of course)

NPVIC is a disastrous idea in the absence of a federal elections apparatus, as in Canada. Which can't be created short of a constitutional amendment.

I don't think it would work that way. If enough states signed up to get to 270 electoral votes, then pretty much every state would be forced to sign up, or be deemed completely irrelevant. If everyone signs up, then we effectively have a national popular vote system and state residency no longer matters.

[saxitoxin]

That would encourage each state to create the largest electorate possible. Right now Texas and California have no incentive to game their elections systems. This introduces an incentive.

North Dakota and South Dakota each drop their residency requirement from 30 days to 24 hours and introduce 3 days of early voting - California lowers their voting age to 12 - Texas begins allowing state prisoners to vote (the guards serve as poll workers, of course)

NPVIC is a disastrous idea in the absence of a federal elections apparatus, as in Canada. Which can't be created short of a constitutional amendment.

I don't think it would work that way. If enough states signed up to get to 270 electoral votes, then pretty much every state would be forced to sign up, or be deemed completely irrelevant. If everyone signs up, then we effectively have a national popular vote system and state residency no longer matters.

NPVIC doesn't abolish state-administered elections. It's just a treaty whereby states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Currently no one cares if Romney wins by 100,000 votes or 500,000 votes in Texas. He's getting their electoral votes either way. Under NPVIC Texas is incentivized to maximize the raw vote total they publish.

Unless you have absolute faith in the uncorruptability of 50 separate elections systems to accurately report their local vote totals, NPVIC becomes a well-intentioned idea with serious unintended consequences (absent a uniform elections system for federal contests, like in Canada).

[Symmetry]

That would encourage each state to create the largest electorate possible. Right now Texas and California have no incentive to game their elections systems. This introduces an incentive.

North Dakota and South Dakota each drop their residency requirement from 30 days to 24 hours and introduce 3 days of early voting - California lowers their voting age to 12 - Texas begins allowing state prisoners to vote (the guards serve as poll workers, of course)

NPVIC is a disastrous idea in the absence of a federal elections apparatus, as in Canada. Which can't be created short of a constitutional amendment.

I don't think it would work that way. If enough states signed up to get to 270 electoral votes, then pretty much every state would be forced to sign up, or be deemed completely irrelevant. If everyone signs up, then we effectively have a national popular vote system and state residency no longer matters.

It'd be interesting to see, but like I said, Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote. And their demographics are getting smaller. That's a generational problem at this point. Repubs simply won't accept it.

[Metsfanmax]

NPVIC doesn't abolish state-administered elections. It's just a treaty whereby states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Currently no one cares if Romney wins by 100,000 votes or 500,000 votes in Texas. He's getting their electoral votes either way. Under NPVIC Texas is incentivized to maximize the raw vote total they publish.

Unless you have absolute faith in the uncorruptability of 50 separate elections systems to accurately report their local vote totals, NPVIC becomes a well-intentioned idea with serious unintended consequences (absent a uniform elections system for federal contests, like in Canada).

Well, I think that if states reached a majority with NPVIC, that would be the spur needed to abolish the electoral college, which is my ultimate aim in supporting it. But besides that, I don't think that arguments of potential corruption are a strong reason to avoid it. Corruption exists either way. Even with a federal election system, voting happens on the local level, and you can't stop local officials from attempting to engage in corruption. Furthermore, I don't want to be part of a system where we distrust our elected representatives so much that we change how we act because of fear that they will systematically disenfranchise us. I am much more of an optimist than that.

[saxitoxin]

I am much more of an optimist than that.

okay

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

In 2004 there were wild predictions the Democrat Party was done as a national force. Then they retooled their agenda and started running as a moderate Right-Wing party, instead of a centrist party, and depositioned the Republicans, neutering the potency of their attacks.

If the Republicans take the Senate in 2014 (20 Democrats are up for election, the 13 Republicans all hold safe seats in the south) they'll probably be content with keeping Congress and letting the Democrats have the White House, which was the norm in the 20th century. If they fail to pick up the 4 seats they need, they'll put up a Nixon who runs to the left of the Democrat. If they don't, then they're probably toast, but there are a lot of checkpoints they need to pass through first. There's always a good deal of apocalyptic predictions the day after an election that never comes to pass.

The Democrats have mastered what the Republicans did in the '90's, labeling the other side as extremists and getting it to stick. In Florida, as I posted elsewhere, two Republican county commissioners were unseated because they voted to stop mandatory water fluoridation - a position supported by the Sierra Club and and adopted in Sweden, Holland and Finland - and were denounced as "tea party extremists" for it. Once the GOP finds a new angle of attack there will be no need to change policies, just the way those policies are presented. The status quo is in full effect.

[Symmetry]

Republicans have lost 5 out of the previous 6 presidential elections regarding the national popular vote.

Democrats haven't won a majority of the popular vote in 3 of the previous 6 presidential elections ('92, '96, '04).

Now you're just being trollish. You know I was referring to the 6 most recent presidential elections. Hence the generational issue.