So who's everyone supporting for 2008?

[6thGen]

Is the opposite better? Now they ignore the most populated states because they are not in play. If our country is becoming increasingly urbanized, shouldn't the urban centers have an increasingly greater role in electing a president? Why would anyone really vote in NY and CA when they know the Dems will carry? The popular vote in 2000 would have been even more Gore if they felt like their vote was going to count. We live in a democracy, lets have a popular vote. There is enough of federalism in Congress.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Presidents ignore New York? And Florida? And California? Do you have anything, absolutely anything to quantify your premise that "the popular vote in 2000 would have been even more Gore if they felt like their vote was going to count"? Anything. And here, I'll make it easy for you.

hoover_rc

Should we just do away with states all together?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

 

[6thGen]

hoover_rc

Messrs. Highton and Wolfinger are here to prove you wrong. Go ahead and discount their study as Rovian, since they are from the conservative bastion of Berkley.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/publications/workingpapers/99-5.pdf

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HIGHER TURNOUT

Benjamin Highton & Raymond E. Wolfinger

Rich Americans, far more likely to vote than their poorer fellow citizens, also differ in how they vote and what policies they favor. These undisputed facts lead to the widespread belief "that if everybody in this country voted, the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years" (Galbraith 1986). The gist of this conclusion, which seems to follow ineluctably from our opening sentence, is accepted by almost everyone except a few empirical political scientists. Their analyses of survey data show that no objectively achieved increase in turnout--including compulsory voting--would be a boon to progressive causes or Democratic candidates. Simply put, voters differ minimally from all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted.

...

Would election outcomes and the substance of public policy in the United States dramatically change if more people voted? Contrary to the expectations of many others, we have found that universal turnout would bring modest changes... Taken as a whole, nonvoters appear well represented by those who vote.

 

[seacliffes]

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

 

[Bob]

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

good point!

 

[30A Skunkape]

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

 

[Smiling JOe]

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

but hopefully, he won't be running again.

 

[Gypsea]

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

Excepting that his reserve buddies don't ever remember him completing his reserve duty. ;-) Oh, thats right, his records were lost. ;-) ;-)

 

[30A Skunkape]

Excepting that his reserve buddies don't ever remember him completing his reserve duty. ;-) Oh, thats right, his records were lost. ;-) ;-)

No, Dan Rather has them

 

[hoover_rc]

hoover_rc

Should we just do away with states all together?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

No, but the Senate does a fine job representing the states equally.

And that study is Rovian..

Resurrect the campaign-finance reform movement, abolish the Electorate, overhaul the primary process, and provide greater 3rd party incentives.

"The electoral college is about balance of power. Balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is the sheer genius of our form of government."

The electoral college is not about balance of power between the three branches of government. It is entirely a function of the executive branch. But I agree whole-heartedly in your assessment of the genius of our form of govt. Too bad neither the Leg or the Jud have managed to assert their balance in the last 7 years...

 

[6thGen]

No, but the Senate does a fine job representing the states equally.

And that study is Rovian..

Resurrect the campaign-finance reform movement, abolish the Electorate, overhaul the primary process, and provide greater 3rd party incentives.

OK. Scientific facts aren't worth looking at. Thanks for making your position clear on that. You know the "campaign finance reform" movement is unconstitutional, right? Or should we just throw out the first amendment as well while we are making your changes?