The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Obama re-elected
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-08-2012, 01:49 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

After the Republicans threatened to let public finances collapse last year it should have become clear to everybody that polarization is not symmetric. If you can blame Obama for anything it is that he cared about finding compromises with such an extreme and irresponsible party instead of doing the right thing.
I am a social democrat and for moderated capitalism, I am for reform instead of revolution, I am a big fan of compromise and social stability. And precisely because I am a conservative social democrat who cares about social stability I am an opponent of the radicals who would risk a default on public payments in order to extort the administration and gain political ground.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:24 PM
LCARS 24's Avatar
LCARS 24 LCARS 24 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 630
Default

Breaking [fake] news!!!

WASHINGTON—Sources confirmed this afternoon that a heavily armed Karl Rove has positioned himself atop the Electoral College clock tower and is planning to pick off at least 50 electors with a high-precision sniper rifle.

link

BOSTON—Calling it “a small bump in the road,” sources within Romney headquarters announced plans Wednesday to readjust their campaign strategy following their candidate’s loss of the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama.

link
__________________
Star Trek Journal
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2012, 11:27 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,653
Default

I am so happy we have Obama for four more years! This is just awesome! On the day of the election, I was working the polls with my dad and my friend for 14 hours straight. Man, it was so tedious you have no idea! At first I was worried that Romney was going to take the cake and win, but in the end I was so thrilled to hear that Obama has another four years left in office! I know all of you know my views by now, and I am thrilled of the results! I would also like to add that for those of you that voted for Romney, or any other candidate other than Obama, I respect your views and am sorry that you were not able to get the outcome you wanted. I am still open to your friendship and company here on the forums! Thanks again for voting and keep making your voice heard!
__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-09-2012, 07:20 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

The thing I don't dig is the whole "first to reach 270" electoral votes and you win process.

Maybe my math is flawed...it's early, and my brain is still playing catchup with the rest of me, and perhaps the process doesn't numerically support such a possibility....suppose Obama reached 270 first, as he did, but then when the rest of the count comes in, and Romney actually came out ahead? What message does that send to voters?

"Well, sorry your votes don't count once we get past 270. Thanks for voting, but your voice stopped being heard once we hit the benchmark....suckers!"

That's the impression that I get. If this is wrong, I'm sorry, but this is why I didn't vote for either idiot (Romney or Obama). I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils, or, in the end, being told that my vote didn't count for S***!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-09-2012, 08:16 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Well, as I understand it - please someone correct me if I'm wrong - but once a candidate is past 270 electoral votes it's not mathematically possible anyway for the other guy to then come back and win. Even if they won every other state subsequently called.

That's why 270 is the majority figure needed to pass. There are 538 electoral votes available in all, half of that (rounded off) is 269..............hence 270 to win. Simple majority. At least, that is my understanding. And we know the popular vote is technically irrelevant under the system as it exists so it's purely based on the States themselves and who wins where.

But (it depends on your POV) whether it means your vote 'counts' is trickier. If you live in a steadfastly Democratic or Republican state then you might think that voting the opposite is pointless because your state is so blue or red you won't change the result. If you live in a state that switches you could have felt your vote may have.

Hypothetically -

Even if 'your' candidate weren't to win then you could still have the effect of reducing the strength of the winners mandate. Purely for illustration Obama won I think 365 Electoral votes in 2008. He won again in 2012, but with fewer. So clearly that's an indicator of a more split votership. If he had won with only, say, 290 votes then that would be again a sign of dissatisfaction with him, even if he won. which would weaken his mandate and authority slightly. He would still have won though. It's not just looking at the raw final numbers, what those numbers mean has to be considered as well.

That's why I have to say I find it concerning when voters abstain, especially on major elections. I can completely understand voter apathy with many current leaders (I experience it as well with the UK's politicians) in different countries but the ability to vote is an often hard fought right. And everyone still has an opinion afterwards. But it still carries weight when people decide to use it.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 11-09-2012 at 08:50 AM. Reason: The chance to waffle for a bit.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2012, 08:34 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
The thing I don't dig is the whole "first to reach 270" electoral votes and you win process.

Maybe my math is flawed...it's early, and my brain is still playing catchup with the rest of me, and perhaps the process doesn't numerically support such a possibility....suppose Obama reached 270 first, as he did, but then when the rest of the count comes in, and Romney actually came out ahead? What message does that send to voters?

"Well, sorry your votes don't count once we get past 270. Thanks for voting, but your voice stopped being heard once we hit the benchmark....suckers!"

That's the impression that I get. If this is wrong, I'm sorry, but this is why I didn't vote for either idiot (Romney or Obama). I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils, or, in the end, being told that my vote didn't count for S***!
I think the problem you refer has nothing to do with "getting more than half of the electoral votes implies victory" but with the constant polling DURING election day, i.e. based on some data it is PROJECTED that a certain state is won by candidate A or B but the votes have not been counted yet and people are still voting.
As a consequence of this abundance of polls some people might treat them as actual results and you might get self-fulfilling prophecy effects ... which is why the polls have partly been politicized, i.e. party apparatchiks want the polls to favour their candidate as some people might think "OK, A has already won so voting for B is pointless and I will stay at home".
This also has an influence upon third-party candidates with people following the notion that "these guys do not stand a chance of winning anyway so why vote for them" which ignores that this notion is based upon your expectations of what other people do, to vote for the two major candidates (respectively in the case of polls how many votes they most likely get). But if everybody thinks like this it is perfectly natural that only the two major candidates win!

The trick is to stop thinking strategically, to not care about what other people do and vote for whom you consider to be the best candidate. Like you did.
I recently had a similar debate with a friend who said that he will vote for a particular candidate/party in order to induce a change of government while I said that I will vote for a minor party because their platform is far better and that I do not care about whether it is strategically wise to do so or whether this choice makes it more likely that there will be a new chancellor.
It is basically a trade-off between being pragmatic or principled.

Last edited by horatio : 11-09-2012 at 08:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:02 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

The problem with third party candidates in this country is that they get almost zero support. They get no electoral college votes whatsoever. The best bet in this country is usually to try and get change within the two existing parties.

An example of that is The Tea Party's influence on the 2010 midterms. Love them or hate them, you couldn't ignore them. They influenced policy of the Republican party. That's the best strategy for any group that wants their voices heard.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:15 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

The interesting thing about the Tea Party is whether they influenced the Republican Party in a way that harmed it in the election?

To the outside observer that element within the party once risen expended millions of dollars and spent the better part of two years (although 4 overall) trying to force the party further Right and to make absolutely sure Obama became a one term president because of their naked feelings on him. And they failed. There's no two ways about it. They failed in their mission. Why?

That suggests they weren't as appealing as they think they were and if the Republican Party wants to look at itself in the wake of their result maybe veering so far over backfired on them a little. So, yes, you can force a change in the main party. But you still can't always get what you want. Because of the voters.

Anyways, how's the weather out your way now? Hadn't seen you around for a couple.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-09-2012, 11:48 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

I think that the Republican party failed because they aren't selling themselves to a wide enough demographic, the white male vote isn't enough to win on anymore. I think there is a large pool of untapped voters out there that would go for a small government, fiscally conservative message that is socially liberal. I think that is the future for the Republican party if they want to compete in the 21st century. I think they need to do a better job courting non white demographics. I also think that Romney was just not a strong candidate, I felt that way from the beginning. A guy like Chris Christie would have won, I think. The republicans botched an opportunity here, a bad economy usually spells doom on the incumbent.

As far as weather, everything is fine where I am. We came out of Sandy OK here, I lost power for around 30 hours or so. Nothing compared to what some are going through. I'm pretty far inland though.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-09-2012, 12:49 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

Actually, it was probably closer to 40 hours that my power was out, but still. That's nothing compared to what people closer to the shore or in places like Staten Island are going through. Those places are like a war zone, complete with gas rationing. We got our cars filled up before the storm hit.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.