If the House picks the president or the supreme court, I may be in the streets rioting. Seriously guys why doesn't the popular vote pick the tie breaker in the EC?
//Nothing like a good protest to burn that vacation time :-p
That's what the Right said about the Left winning in the last election. There won't be riots because it's football season and Americans are very, very easily convinced that politics doesn't actually matter to them.
Especially considering the ones who should be rioting are like Jack, negatively affected by the candidates they're voting in. Many of them (maybe not specifically Jack) have already been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that their candidate is the only one who can save them. If he doesn't manage to do that (by, for instance, blocking stimulus packages), it's going to be blamed on the Left.
If the House picks the president or the supreme court, I may be in the streets rioting. Seriously guys why doesn't the popular vote pick the tie breaker in the EC?
Because that rule has never really been tested, and thus most people don't know it exists and it can't be improved. If you stop and think about it, though, it could be a good thing.
A Mitt Rombot Presidency with a Smilin' Joe Biden vice presidency would be incredibly contentious. It may actually function closer to the bi-partisan government we're supposed to have, or similar to how Germany's massive coalition government works.
The last election was a blow out, I'm talking about a tie situation where the republican house hands the presidency to Mitt Romney even if after this election they don't have the majority.
The last election was a blow out, I'm talking about a tie situation where the republican house hands the presidency to Mitt Romney even if after this election they don't have the majority.
That would definitely happen. I still think it could be a good thing in the long run. The "Administration" would either be forced to become very centrist or nothing would get done, either way it's better than the horrible partisanship we currently have going on.
We like to call it a "grand" coalition rather than a "massive" coalition. It mostly works out fine. The Greens are no longer in the ruling coalition, but they are one of the main opposition parties. The Left Party did okay last time out too, along with the more centrist parties. Sometimes being the opposition to a weird coalition is a good place to be.
Ah, I got the terminology wrong. Sorry. I remembered it was something like "massive". Interesting to hear that the Greens are out now. All in all, I really like Germany's system. It has a lot of voices contributing to the conversation.
Anyway, my point is that in a big, fucked up coalition government, it's really hard to look good. None of the voters are happy either. Their party either failed to get into government, or is sharing the majority with their political opposites.
Just look at the UK at the moment. While the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is pissing everyone off, Labor don't have to do anything to become more popular except not let any tar stick to them. The population, meanwhile, are pissed that a party that got a minority of the votes is swinging their weight about.
EDIT: finally my point - smaller parties in the USA would benefit greatly from a fucked up election. A tie would do nicely.
People on my facebook feed and local news feeds are shouting their lungs out that Romney "won" the fact checks, apparently completely unaware that fact checks are measured against objective reality and that the words "passed a fact check" actually mean a literal thing in literal reality and it's not just a slogan.
Well the stupidest among them have substituted "fact check" for "debate" since apparently they've caught wind that simply winning the "debate" isn't enough, so now they have to claim their guy "won" the fact check.
I can't believe there is so much stupidity in Connecticut. It's overwhelming. Oh and I said something positive about Socialism on a local news feed so now I'm getting death threats.
The popular vote doesn't matter and it cannot be made to matter unless the rules are changed before the election.
How many people don't bother to vote in states that are heavily for the opposite party? If popular vote were to matter we would likely see vote demographic changes in non battleground states.
I believe that passing a fact check is an objective thing that occurs in objective reality and can be measured and that you can't just hoot it and holler it at other people like you would "Down with this sort of thing!" or "Republicans Rule!"
People on my facebook feed and local news feeds are shouting their lungs out that Romney "won" the fact checks, apparently completely unaware that fact checks are measured against objective reality and that the words "passed a fact check" actually mean a literal thing in literal reality and it's not just a slogan.
Actually, according to FactCheck.org, it was a tie on fact checks. Both lied 5 times.
Politifact, which uses gradations on how badly you lied (as opposed to FactCheck's "true or not true" viewpoints accompanied by descriptions explaining their justification) broke things down differently so far:
Interestingly, one statement of Obama's that FactCheck.org said was false was rated as "Half True" by Politifact. If you read FactCheck.org's explanation, though, you'll find the facts do match between the checkers -- it's just that FactCheck seems to view things as wholly true or wholly false whereas Politifact allows for some fuzziness in their ratings system.
Edit: also, there was a mismatch having to do with whether or not Romney called Russia a "threat" or a "foe." Politifact parsed the two words as identical in meaning, so they rated Obama's statement true, but FactCheck parsed them as different so they rated Obama's statement as false.
They also measure the degree of the lie. On degree, Romney lost big time. I think that's a more useful metric. Obama may have simply been inaccurate, some facts may have room for interpretation, etc. No doubt he spun things but Romney was flat out lying and I feel that Obama really wasn't.
They also measure the degree of the lie. On degree, Romney lost big time. I think that's a more useful metric. Obama may have simply been inaccurate, some facts may have room for interpretation, etc. No doubt he spun things but Romney was flat out lying and I feel that Obama really wasn't.
Well, FactCheck lets you decide on how bad the lie is based on their justifications. Politifact posts their own opinions on how bad the lie was.
To put it all in perspective, at least for me, I'm not a great fan of either of them but I think Romney is actually dangerous while Obama is simply useless.
That's what the Right said about the Left winning in the last election. There won't be riots because it's football season and Americans are very, very easily convinced that politics doesn't actually matter to them.
Especially considering the ones who should be rioting are like Jack, negatively affected by the candidates they're voting in. Many of them (maybe not specifically Jack) have already been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that their candidate is the only one who can save them. If he doesn't manage to do that (by, for instance, blocking stimulus packages), it's going to be blamed on the Left.
If he doesn't help me I'll vote the fucker out in four years.
I knew he was glib from the start, because saying "oh you might DIE" is appeal to emotion. So I might die? I might die every day I wake up. Should I not wake up?
That's what the Right said about the Left winning in the last election. There won't be riots because it's football season and Americans are very, very easily convinced that politics doesn't actually matter to them.
Especially considering the ones who should be rioting are like Jack, negatively affected by the candidates they're voting in. Many of them (maybe not specifically Jack) have already been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that their candidate is the only one who can save them. If he doesn't manage to do that (by, for instance, blocking stimulus packages), it's going to be blamed on the Left.
If he doesn't help me I'll vote the fucker out in four years.
I hope so, but you're gonna be subjected to 4 years of excuses and leveling the blame at the other guy.
Comments
//Nothing like a good protest to burn that vacation time :-p
Especially considering the ones who should be rioting are like Jack, negatively affected by the candidates they're voting in. Many of them (maybe not specifically Jack) have already been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that their candidate is the only one who can save them. If he doesn't manage to do that (by, for instance, blocking stimulus packages), it's going to be blamed on the Left.
A Mitt Rombot Presidency with a Smilin' Joe Biden vice presidency would be incredibly contentious. It may actually function closer to the bi-partisan government we're supposed to have, or similar to how Germany's massive coalition government works.
Just look at the UK at the moment. While the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is pissing everyone off, Labor don't have to do anything to become more popular except not let any tar stick to them. The population, meanwhile, are pissed that a party that got a minority of the votes is swinging their weight about.
EDIT: finally my point - smaller parties in the USA would benefit greatly from a fucked up election. A tie would do nicely.
I can't believe there is so much stupidity in Connecticut. It's overwhelming. Oh and I said something positive about Socialism on a local news feed so now I'm getting death threats.
How many people don't bother to vote in states that are heavily for the opposite party? If popular vote were to matter we would likely see vote demographic changes in non battleground states.
Politifact, which uses gradations on how badly you lied (as opposed to FactCheck's "true or not true" viewpoints accompanied by descriptions explaining their justification) broke things down differently so far:
Obama: 2 True, 1 probably true (but not fully fact checked yet), 1 Mostly True, 4 Half True
Romney: 1 True, 5 Mostly True, 1 Mostly False, 2 "Pants on Fire!" false
Interestingly, one statement of Obama's that FactCheck.org said was false was rated as "Half True" by Politifact. If you read FactCheck.org's explanation, though, you'll find the facts do match between the checkers -- it's just that FactCheck seems to view things as wholly true or wholly false whereas Politifact allows for some fuzziness in their ratings system.
Edit: also, there was a mismatch having to do with whether or not Romney called Russia a "threat" or a "foe." Politifact parsed the two words as identical in meaning, so they rated Obama's statement true, but FactCheck parsed them as different so they rated Obama's statement as false.