Monday, November 01, 2010

Motivation to vote

If you have already voted, then congratulations for taking your responsibility seriously to this great nation. But if you are one of those thinking that this November election doesn't matter much, or maybe one who wants to send Obama a message that he's displeasing you, and you are going to vote for Republicans or maybe not vote, I wish you'd think about a couple of things.

One is this is the year that the census is implemented with voting districts. Republicans and Democrats have used this before to gerrymander districts in such a way that one party loses power and the other gains another seat. Because of the timing of this election, delivering legislatures to the Republicans will let them do this again. Gerrymandering makes for weird districts, aimed only at causing one party to lose and the other win seats. It is all about socially dividing districts for power.

So when you vote Republican in any election, that's one gift you are handing them. There's another, bigger one.

Recently I read an article about the possibility of Mayor Bloomberg running for president as an Independent in 2012. So here is the scenario. He runs and prevents Obama or the Republican candidate from getting enough votes to win the Electoral College. What happens then? Well the race is decided by the House of Representatives.

Let's just suppose that the other candidate is Sarah Palin which seems likely as she is saying everything to indicate she will be running. When she does, she's going to get the Republican nomination. Just look at all the nutcases they nominated this time-- Christine O' Donnell? please! The way they operate is to avoid answering questions, stay away from the main press and speak to their own followers with what seem to be big cheering masses. That influences voters. If Sarah Palin wants the Republican nomination, she's going to have it

Now the imaginary scenario is Bloomberg as an Independent and that race being decided by what you let be a Republican controlled House of Representatives under John Boehner. He's not going to choose the candidate with the popular vote when he says his whole goal is to get rid of Obama even now in 2010. And it won't be Bloomberg...

Now do you have some motivation to vote?


Paul said...

Rain, Sarah Palin will never be President. :-)

justa thought said...

Your blog to everyone's ears. Messages are just great, but voting does affect so very many lives now and in the future. Even if we don't feel perfect about who we're voting for we all need to consider who, or what, we are voting against. It may sound negative, but it's the way things work.

Thank you for your post.

Rain said...

I would have said somebody like her could never be on a vice presidential ticket either but she was. Never overestimate American people and their ability to be manipulated but in this scenario, it would be the House of Representatives who would decide if she could. Look at who you are electing to those offices and be sure you'd want them having that power...

Kay Dennison said...

As usual, you are right on!!!! I will be at the polling place tomorrow as I have been for over 40 years -- it's a block from my home -- and I will vote a straight Democratic ticket for the first time in my life. Any party that supports idiots like Palin and O'Donnell does not deserve a vote from me. And I hope others agree and do the same.

Celia said...

I still haven't recovered from Bush being elected a second time, war or no war. You are correct Rain, do something. We can't sit back and hope, vote, put a sign in your yard, go to a rally. I did and took one of my grandkids. Teach your young ones.

Ingineer66 said...

I agree with Paul. But how is Al Franken any better than O'Donnell? It seems Dems and Republicans each have their share of unqualified folks.

Rain said...

Please!!! You compare Al Franken who graduated from Harvard, who was a successful writer and comedian as well as commentator for years, who earned a living other ways besides just making it off running for office. You seriously compare him to O'Donnell??? You are proving why Republican voters vote as they do. Clueless. Totally clueless.

Just to keep you up to date on who Franken is-- Al Franken.

And Sarah Palin only has to win the nomination and as things stand that's not as hard as you think or you wouldn't have people like Angle likely to be a senator soon with a lot of others just as clueless about science or anything but running on fundamentalism. Palin is popular with the grassroots of her party; and they are clearing out those who are not like themselves. Admittedly the good old boys in the GOP will try to stop her. Karl Rove is already at it but he only gets one vote too. She has a very good chance given who are the alternatives? Unless she self-destructs, something that is certainly possible, I think she's got an excellent shot at the nomination. She could never win with the middle but with Bloomberg in, if he enters, then it changes the whole thing and throws the election to the House who will have a lot of tea partiers in place to secure her selection. Once again the American people would get a president the majority didn't want but was selected for them. I hope it doesn't happen, want someone qualified from the right to run but who do you think that would be who can also excite that base who did put up people like O'Donnell...

Just because you don't like Franken, don't pretend he matches remotely someone like O'Donnell. I am still shaking my head. Where the heck do you get your information?

Ingineer66 said...

I will admit I didn't know Franken went to a famous college. I was basing my opinion on some of the bizarre things I have heard him say since he became a Senator.

Rain said...

and he didn't have to lie about it either as O'Donnell did. But I'd like the hear some examples of bizarre things he's said. I have heard him being satirical but otherwise, he's on the left and what he says fits it so far as I have heard. Maybe the right likes repeating him more than the left. Just as I am stuck hearing what Limbaugh says if I listen to MSNBC... and frankly I do NOT want to hear what Limbaugh says there or anywhere else

Ingineer66 said...

Well Ross Perot split the vote which gave the election to Bill Clinton and that didn't go to the House so I guess anything is possible. But all of the Republicans that I talk to say that Palin should not be President. She is like Obama, good at campaigning and raising money, but doesn't have the X's and O's to be President. So we will see what happens.

Rain said...

Anybody who voted for John McCain in '08 disagrees with you. Any veep can become president and to vote for a ticket without taking that into account is slightly naive and ignoring history especially with a candidate as old as McCain.

Ingineer66 said...

Interesting that you were worried about McCain's age. His mother is still alive while Obama is a smoker and both of his parents are dead. He may not live as long as McCain does.

Rain said...

McCain is also a cancer survivor and an ex POW but I mostly worried about his mental stability. The point I was making was you do not elect someone as a vice president unless you think they can do the job. I also took into account Biden in that manner and have voted against a few presidential candidates when they had someone I truly did not want to see be president. given accidents and assassinations nobody can pretend it's a guarantee they will live out their term. Anybody who voted for McCain had to take that into account with Palin and decided she could do the job. The same mentality will let her get the nomination in '12 and if Bloomberg gets in, possibly the situation I was talking about with nobody getting enough Electoral College votes. That's reality and pipe dreams don't help anybody vote wisely. She could get it and she could win if the House picks the president.

Anonymous said...

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, stipulates that in the event of no candidate getting at least 270 electoral college votes, the House of Representatives decides who will be president.
With National Popular Vote this would never happen, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado—68%, Iowa—75%, Michigan—73%, Missouri—70%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, North Carolina—74%, Ohio—70%, Pennsylvania—78%, Virginia—74%, and Wisconsin—71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska—70%, DC —76%, Delaware—75%, Maine—77%, Nebraska—74%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, Rhode Island—74%, and Vermont—75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas—80%, Kentucky—80%, Mississippi—77%, Missouri—70%, North Carolina—74%, and Virginia—74%; and in other states polled: California—70%, Connecticut—74% , Massachusetts—73%, Minnesota—75%, New York—79%, Washington—77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes—28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


Ingineer66 said...

Anonymous, hopefully your bill will never pass. And if it does hopefully it will never survive a Supreme Court Challenge. You are wrong about thinking that every vote will count. If the national popular vote becomes law a candidate would only need to win the major metropolitan areas to win the popular vote. You would never see a candidate in Montana or Delaware or Alabama again. It would be NYC, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco and maybe a couple of others and that would be it.

12 years ago Barbara Boxer only carried 12 of California's 58 counties, but won the popular vote because she won all the coastal metropolitan counties.

Rain said...

So you want to give more votes to those you have decided you trust more than others? no more democracy but make sure that the ones you like get more power and by the way pay them for that power. Those midwestern states that you like so much and who vote reliably 'your' way are why we have all the farm subsidies because buying their votes is done through that. A lot of pork would be done and Iowa would no longer have such a big voice in who your candidate will be from the Republican party. You not only want a Republic and not a democracy but you want it run by your standards and city people can't match those in your brain... I find that really irritating. And Boxer will only win if she gets the majority of the vote.

Maybe the problem with country folk understanding how they are being shafted by this Republican party is they only get a few radio stations and those are dominated by right wing talk! Right wing talk lies and nobody calls them on it. I listened to a little of Limbaugh on Sunday, then Glenn Beck and they were hitting the same notes... evil evil Obama and if you vote for him you don't love America. It's a choice-- America or Democrats. That's what Limbaugh intoned to his caller. And in the middle of this country, you only hear people who think like him if you listen to talk radio. Then they turn on TV and only get Fox. They have no clue what is going on and you want to and currently have their votes multiplied. What you don't get is that the Republicans are not on your side either. You are losing income and except for being a state employee, you'd have no retirement except SS which your party also wants to end. One vote one man. Forget that for today's Republicans.

Dion said...

Ingineer66 - "I will admit I didn't know Franken went to a famous college. I was basing my opinion on some of the bizarre things I have heard him say since he became a Senator."

Ingineer66, Not to be your online nag, but what has Franken said as a Senator that you deem 'bizarre'?

And I'm still waiting for your healthcare model, the one that will show us the best healthcare system to use. Why are your answers taking so long. Why does it seem you only have talking points and nothing else.

Anonymous said...

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

Anonymous said...

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Montana, Delaware, and Alabama do not get any attention. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Anonymous said...

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

Rural Campaigning

Keep in mind that the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

Ingineer66 said...

Dion and Rain, I do not memorize or write down all of the things I hear from politicians so I do not have any specifics from Franken at the moment. I know I have heard him say some strange things that made him look silly. But that makes him an average DC politician. I have heard many of them on all sides say strange things that made me think that they are not that bright.

On the healthcare model, our system worked pretty well for 80% of Americans. We need to address the 20% that it does not work well for. Not throw out the entire system and take a new one that is a big convoluted mess that still leaves 10% of the people uncovered. Have you read the healthcare law? It is a bunch of political payoffs. Read it and find out how many places racial preferences are mentioned. I thought we were supposed to be moving away from judging people based on the color of their skin. This law makes it worse.

Rain said...

It was getting more and more expensive, ingineer and best for people like you with state packages or corporations behind them that paid a lot of the cost to the point you didn't know what the real cost was. Even there though the cost was rising faster than anything else and covering less.

And it's okay with you to leave behind that 20% if that happens to be the real number. A lot of folks found out something when their health went bad that there was a limit to the coverage and they had to cover the rest or maybe a child outgrew the parents covering them and was diagnosed with something big.

The issue here is that Republicans seem to mostly care about what something does for them and very little about what it isn't doing for someone else.

As for Franken, I follow what he has said and haven't heard anything foolish. You just don't like him or agree with his philosophy for the country. He is no fool.

Ingineer66 said...

It wasn't rising faster than the cost of a college education. Why haven't we passed a law to control that? Why is that cost rising so fast? It certainly isn't the insurance companies or large corporations fault.

Rain said...

no, insurance companies with record profits cannot possibly be a factor lol

You and I are going round in circles with this and to no gain. You are about to get your way with about 30 new tea partiers in the House (some other straight conservatives) but where many want to end the health coverage, end financial regulations, end environmental regulations, investigate Obama's birth certificate, look for causes to impeach him, spy on Americans for our greater good, fight wars around the world against... terrorism, undo the evil the liberals have tried to do with helping the poor, and on it goes. The American people are mad at something, many don't even know what but they are blaming Obama and Democrats. So you get what you want. We'll see if it ends up being what you want.

You know one of the things the stimulus did was pay part of the high cost of someone's insurance if they lost their job through paying a good chunk of Cobra's costs. If you ever lose your job, you might wish some of these programs, which the evil left had in there, were there...

At any rate, onward and upward as a friend of mine used to say and we will all hope for the best.

The only other thing I can say is seeing Pelosi out doesn't displease me but seeing it be Boehner now there with Bachmann wanting to move into leadership also, well you have quite a bunch yourself!

Rain said...

Incidentally, I favor the idea of the government helping kids go to college who get good grades in high school. It's not quite as essential though as that they get health care!

Ingineer66 said...

I know about the Cobra thing. One of my best friends lost his job and got help with the payments until he got a new job. And I favor a low cost or free college education for kids that get good grades too. It used to be one of the strong points of California. But I do not like when it is based on race and that is what we have done here. Illegals and minorities that are rich get more financial help than poor white kids and that is not right.

And so far it looks like much of the country is voting Republican as a referendum on Reid, Pelosi and Obama, but not here in Calif based on the early returns we are voting for a bunch of Democrats and Democrat ideas on the ballot measures. So it looks like Brown and Boxer can just drive us right off the cliff.