I can find our County, can you find yours?
Ric Golding said:
(http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg)
I can find our County, can you find yours?
Forgive me stating what might, to some, be blindingly obvious, but there seems to be an AWFUL lot more red on that map than blue. But the red guy lost… Hmmmmmmm. tac www.ovgrs.org
Terry A de C Foley said:
Forgive me stating what might, to some, be blindingly obvious, but there seems to be an AWFUL lot more red on that map than blue.But the red guy lost…
Hmmmmmmm.
tac
www.ovgrs.org
Population density. The blue bits, by and large, have more voters in 'em.
Of course, to my British/Canadian eyes, the whole thing looks backwards anyway, what with the right-ish party being red and the left-ish being blue. 
But, more people live in the blue areas, and have more ““electoral”” votes… Everyone says ““vote, vote””, your vote counts… It might, in smaller home town contests, but not in the Big Scope, it doesn’t… The electoral college decides who becomes President, and they are not required to abide by the Majority rule…
So, stand in line for 7-8 hours, to vote for nothing…
I may be wrong, but I don’t think the electoral votes split by county. It’s interesting to see where the votes fell county by county, but what counts for electoral votes is how the population of the state voted. I didn’t see the final numbers, but on election night when ABC called the race Obama had a considerable lead in the popular vote as well. 4 years ago Mr. Bush did not win the popular vote, but took the electoral college.
I think the founders got it right when they designed the electoral collage. Like the division of congress, it keeps some balance between the large and small states. Sometimes it agrees with the popular vote, and sometimes it does not.
Everybody’s vote is important. If your candidate lost, you still didn’t vote for nothing.
Terry A de C Foley said:
Forgive me stating what might, to some, be blindingly obvious, but there seems to be an AWFUL lot more red on that map than blue.But the red guy lost…
Hmmmmmmm.
tac
www.ovgrs.org
Seriously, my county alone has 1.5 times the population of the entire state of Alaska.
Looks like the rural folk liked the white guy better though if you look at the the percentages county by county it was close in many.
-Brian
First of all, I absolutely agree with Jon Radder that the Founders did there job. And to think they were part time, had left their jobs and families and didn’t get paid for this work they were doing.
Brian said - “Looks like the rural folk liked the white guy better though if you look at the the percentages county by county it was close in many.”
Probably because a whole lot of us are white guys. The blacks voted for the black because he was black and that was fine. My boss, the lawyer, voted for a lawyer because he was a lawyer and that was fine. But if a white guy votes for a white guy because he is white, he is a Neanderthal bigoted racist. I don’t understand.
Actually I voted for the military guy because he was a military guy and I felt he would serve the military people the best. Now I know some will say the black lawyer will become a military guy when he becomes the Commander in Chief and that’s true. The troops will follow him, unless he totally disrespects them like “the Pervert” did. At that time, instead of raising a big stink they will just retire like they did in the 1990’s. It all balances out. And yes, my County is Red.
I voted fer the war hero…
Here’s a map of the election if population density is mapped, rather than land
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statepopredblue512.png)
In this map, Rhode Island is twice the size of Wyoming because it has twice the number of people in it. It’s also misleading in the sense that it would be a more accurate map if it showed shades of color, rather than simply red or blue This is also an interesting map–this shows counties in which the Democrats did better in 2008 than they did in 2004
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/map.jpg)
The red counties are the places where Republicans increased their share of the vote. IMHO the Senate was a big mistake–my county has more people in it than N. Dakota, but N. Dakota gets two Senators. The people of N. Dakota get political power way out of proportion to their numbers. It’s not as if, in this age of interstate commerce, North Dakota has a bunch of interests that are specific to North Dakota and distinct–it has some, but really it’s entirely dependent on commerce with the other statesx. State citizenship doesn’t mean what it did when the Constitution was written. Most people feel–and the law largely agrees–that they are citizens of the US first, and their state second. I’d be happy to get rid of the Senate–it’s un-democratic
Just goes to show who’s living in the cities and whos living in the rurals
mike said:There is no doubt that you would like to get rid of the Senate, mike, that way, your county, and other ones with large populations like it would have all the political power. This is just what the founders wanted to prevent. Somehow, I think that they were smarter than you are.
IMHO the Senate was a big mistake--my county has more people in it than N. Dakota, but N. Dakota gets two Senators. The people of N. Dakota get political power way out of proportion to their numbers. It's not as if, in this age of interstate commerce, North Dakota has a bunch of interests that are specific to North Dakota and distinct--it has some, but really it's entirely dependent on commerce with the other statesx. State citizenship doesn't mean what it did when the Constitution was written. Most people feel--and the law largely agrees--that they are citizens of the US first, and their state second. I'd be happy to get rid of the Senate--it's un-democratic
The United States was never intended to be a democracy. It is a republic. Put on your big boy pants, and deal with it.
Sadly, my state is a blue state. Still, it has interests that are widely different from your county, and, are expected to remain so for a long time. I think that we will keep the Senate, if only to protect our interests.
Can you imagine what this nation would be like if the laws were written by the denizens of New York City?
Victor Smith said:Yep, in the book I'm reading they're called "backwoods conservatives". ;)
Just goes to show who's living in the cities and whos living in the rurals
HJ.
Two simple letters can indicate so much.
You didn’t swap ar for oo did you?
“I’d be happy to get rid of the Senate–it’s un-democratic”
Mike,
As stated by others, it is a Republic. You are just going to have to learn to live with that. It is the “United States of America”, not the “So Called Democracy in the Middle of the North American Continent”. I agree that most people think their citzenship is more related to the Country, than an individual State, but I wouldn’t try an convince a Texan of that. I am more impressed with the Founders of this great Nation with each generation of politicians and eggheads that think the system should be changed from the original intentions of our form of government. I’d also be happy to get rid of the Senate, but I would do it by term limits and keep the institution.
Steve Featherkile said:No they wouldn't, they would only have political power proportionate to their numbers. They would not have all of it. As it stands now, the 635,867 people in North Dakota have the same senatorial power as the 23.5 million people in Texas.
There is no doubt that you would like to get rid of the Senate, mike, that way, your county, and other ones with large populations like it would have all the political power.
Steve Featherkile said:You have congressmen, no? Your interests are represented by them. My state is widely diverse, ranging from Appalachia to the plantation south to urban northeast. There isn't really a "virginia" interest.
Sadly, my state is a blue state. Still, it has interests that are widely different from your county, and, are expected to remain so for a long time. I think that we will keep the Senate, if only to protect our interests.
Steve Featherkile said:Might be pretty great. I lived in manhattan for a while and loved it. But of course the denizens of NYC could not write the laws, as they are a distinct minority
Can you imagine what this nation would be like if the laws were written by the denizens of New York City?
My point was simply that the Senate is anti-democratic, which I think is self evidently true. But since you like the Senate so much, how about we make DC a state? It has more people than North Dakota, and they get taxed with no congressional representation. I like that idea–hey, maybe you’re right about the Senate
Mike, I’m going to join the ranks of those that disagree with you on this one. You know all this, but I’m going to say it anyway…
The Senate was designed so that each individual state would have equal power within the Senate. This is balanced by the House where the power is divided by population. It takes both houses and the president to pass a law, and the court to uphold it. This is the basic balance of power that the founders dreamed up. It’s worked pretty good for over 200 years the way I see it.
Has it worked that well? Some political scientists argue it’s worked well if the goal is to supress the popular will. It’s worked well to, say, protect agricultural subsidies in Iowa and channel pork to states with small populations. It was designed as a check on democracy and it’s worked well to do that. Just don’t complain, then, about how politics doesn’t express your will or it only responds to big money or it ever changes anything. The Senate was designed to do exactly that.
I’m always surprised on this forum–here the same people who constantly denounce politicians and the political system as corrupt, inept, unresponsive, out of touch, who suggest that they think we need a revolution, react to criticism of the Senate by claiming we live in the best of all possible worlds.
If you want a responsive government that actually represents your interests, dump the Senate. If you want a government that acts to generalize everyone’s interests into a generic middle and perpetuate the status quo, the the Senate is your ballgame.
I’m not sure why people keep telling me we live in a republic–the house of representatives is a republican institution, I’m not suggesting getting rid of it and having direct democracy. Nor am I’m suggesting abolishing the states. I’m suggesting that many of the things people complain about regarding American government could be fixed by eliminating the Senate
“Has it worked that well?”
My answer to that question is, YES it has!
Additionally, the original framework of the Constitution as fashioned by the founders of the United States of America, further points out just how unique and uncommonly intelligent they really were. Take note here, my choice of the term “intelligent” as opposed to “educated” this was both intentional and emphatic. They recognized the fact that any form of a purely “direct democracy” or “indirect democracy” is as worthless and dangerous as any form of tyranny yet devised.
mike omalley said:
Has it worked that well? Some political scientists argue it's worked well if the goal is to supress the popular will. It's worked well to, say, protect agricultural subsidies in Iowa and channel pork to states with small populations. It was designed as a check on democracy and it's worked well to do that. Just don't complain, then, about how politics doesn't express your will or it only responds to big money or it ever changes anything. The Senate was designed to do exactly that.I’m always surprised on this forum–here the same people who constantly denounce politicians and the political system as corrupt, inept, unresponsive, out of touch, who suggest that they think we need a revolution, react to criticism of the Senate by claiming we live in the best of all possible worlds.
If you want a responsive government that actually represents your interests, dump the Senate. If you want a government that acts to generalize everyone’s interests into a generic middle and perpetuate the status quo, the the Senate is your ballgame.
I’m not sure why people keep telling me we live in a republic–the house of representatives is a republican institution, I’m not suggesting getting rid of it and having direct democracy. Nor am I’m suggesting abolishing the states. I’m suggesting that many of the things people complain about regarding American government could be fixed by eliminating the Senate
Mike,
I don’t know if people advocate getting rid of the institution as much as the corrupt participants.
If I could take your one statement and change it just slightly, I think we could have an agreement.
I’m suggesting that many of the things people complain about regarding American government could be fixed by eliminating the Senators, that are currently in office. Term limits would resolve this, but of course that can’t be forced through because of the system that those in power have put in place. The amazing part is some of these people actually think we should respect them or their position. I actually have far more respect for a garbage man or a plumber. At least they work to rid our World of trash and sewage.
Steve Conkle said:Actually, I'm afraid, most of them were highly educated. Sad, and shocking I know, but true. Madison, for example. He was--I shudder to say it--an intellectual. Hamilton too. And Jefferson--read widely in philosophy and political theory. Jefferson and Franklin founded universities! Places where people would--gulp--get "educated!" Jefferson cursed us with the Library of Congress, with its millions of useless books with their so-called "knowledge." John Adams went to Harvard!
“Take note here, my choice of the term “intelligent” as opposed to “educated” this was both intentional and emphatic. They recognized the fact that any form of a purely “direct democracy” or "indirect democracy" is as worthless and dangerous as any form of tyranny yet devised.
Probably the Constitution was actually written by the plumber who was fixing the pipes at the time.
I’m trying to figure out what you are advocating for here. You seem to be arguing that both “direct democracy” and “indirect democracy” equal tyranny. Really? What are you proposing as an alternative to “indirect democracy?” Can you explain what you mean by that?