StarDestroyer.Net BBS

According to news, Obama won in Virginia.

Who is laughing now...?

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:And even if he did Nevada and Colorado are both enough to make it not matter.

(Plus Florida and Virgina, which are both leaning Obama)

His lead in Virginia seems to be solidifying and, in Florida, his lead is greater than what is needed to trigger the dreaded "automatic recount."

Nephtys wrote:How can anyone in their right mind support the Electoral College? It effectively disenfranchises you if you live in specific states that have demographics that will ALWAYS vote one way, while disproportionately making the undecided voters valuable in a handful of arbitrary swing states? It's an outdated system from an era where each state had to send a guy on a horse to cast the ballot to Washington, and to when Virginia had a staggering population imbalance compared to the rest of the union.

We still have nine states that hold over 50% of the total American population and that's going to get worse over the next ten years. If we switched to a popular vote only method only ten states would be payed attention to, if we keep our current system only ten states will be payed attention to. Take your pick, either way forty states do not matter.

Nephtys wrote:How can anyone in their right mind support the Electoral College? It effectively disenfranchises you if you live in specific states that have demographics that will ALWAYS vote one way, while disproportionately making the undecided voters valuable in a handful of arbitrary swing states? It's an outdated system from an era where each state had to send a guy on a horse to cast the ballot to Washington, and to when Virginia had a staggering population imbalance compared to the rest of the union.

Since we don't have mandatory voting like (I think) Australia, something needs to be done to limit the power of fringe movements on both ends of the spectrum. We've got the Electoral College, and as the Duchess pointed out it does its job, even though nobody likes it all the time.

Tribun wrote:According to news, Obama won in Virginia.

Who is laughing now...?

Especially considering it looked like Virginia would go red for a while there

Electoral College is a relic of the old days. I think that going simply based on popular vote is a better idea in an age where a hundred million votes can be counted in a matter of hours. With that said, however, there are political advantages to the Electoral College...so good luck getting it changed.

Nephtys wrote:How can anyone in their right mind support the Electoral College? It effectively disenfranchises you if you live in specific states that have demographics that will ALWAYS vote one way, while disproportionately making the undecided voters valuable in a handful of arbitrary swing states? It's an outdated system from an era where each state had to send a guy on a horse to cast the ballot to Washington, and to when Virginia had a staggering population imbalance compared to the rest of the union.

Yeah, I completely agree. I find the Electoral College to be inherently undemocratic and an modern day anachronism that has no substantial justification for its continued existence. I should be scrapped so that every state comes back into play and broadened out so that multiple parties and candidates can become viable without having to risk the spoiler effect.

Right now you can win the EC with just 22% of the popular vote with a failure rate of 5% of where the EV mismatches the PV, the system is clearly flawed.

Why is it a better idea to have a purely popular vote?

Boom goes the fireworks. Eat civil rights and die, rethugs.

Ahriman238 wrote:Another 4 years of winter. I suppose Romney being out is worth celebration though.

I said it 4 years ago and I'll say it again. 15 years from now, the only thing people will be able to say about Obama is he was the first black man to sit in the big chair.

Bull shit. He has a long list of historic accomplishments. He's the President who passed health care reform, helped repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and killed Osama Bin Laden. He's also the first President to support gay marriage as I recall.

And here come a bunch of Cuyahoga County results, swinging Obama back into the lead, as expected. That is why Ohio was called for Obama, most likely.

Blayne wrote:Right now you can win the EC with just 22% of the popular vote with a failure rate of 5% of where the EV mismatches the PV, the system is clearly flawed.

Could you make it so that states' votes are divided up proportionally?

Suddenly California Republicans and Texas Democrats exist come in to play.

Obama wins Colorado

Gandalf wrote:

Blayne wrote:Right now you can win the EC with just 22% of the popular vote with a failure rate of 5% of where the EV mismatches the PV, the system is clearly flawed.

Could you make it so that states' votes are divided up proportionally?

Suddenly California Republicans and Texas Democrats exist come in to play.

And then you're left with a low-resolution version of the popular vote that gives extra weight to small states due to every state getting 2 bonus electors from their senators. Why bother having it at all then?

So, now there's no excuse.

Mitt, be a man and finally accept that you have the shorter one.

It looks like Romney might win the popular vote.

Tribun wrote:Now we have to wait for Obama winning Colorado, so that Romney can no longer pretend that election is still open.

It just went blue

I hope the Obama supporters that were still waiting in line in FL and VA stayed in line, but I figure they left.

If Obama wins Florida or Virginia, it doesn't matter what ends up happening in Ohio.

Trump is indeed going bananas on twitter. He hasn't called for an armed insurrection yet, but I can picture him flinging his wig across the room while screaming at the wall of TVs and angrily mashing at his diamond coated iPhone.

Channel72 wrote:It looks like Romney might win the popular vote.

Nope, a very populace state expected to go overwhelmingly democrat hasn't been counted yet, though I'm not sure which one. Cali?

Esquire wrote:Why is it a better idea to have a purely popular vote?

The president should represent the majority of the entire nation, not a handful of battleground states.

Borgholio wrote:

Esquire wrote:Why is it a better idea to have a purely popular vote?

The president should represent the majority of the entire nation, not a handful of battleground states.

The majority of the nation doesn't vote, I'll remind you.

Speaking of the popular vote is it still being counted or is this a reverse of 2000? I just checked and it said that Romney is still ahead on the popular vote.

Trump says "Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. "

Since when do Republicans care what the "world" thinks? Regardless, the "world" is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.

Mr Bean wrote:We still have nine states that hold over 50% of the total American population and that's going to get worse over the next ten years. If we switched to a popular vote only method only ten states would be payed attention to, if we keep our current system only ten states will be payed attention to. Take your pick, either way forty states do not matter.

That's not how it would work. The whole point of a popular vote is that it erases state lines. When even one vote can actually make a difference, candidates will spend time in places that have the most people within driving distance and run ads in the largest media markets.