"Cracker" is such a tame slur, though. Even if someone were shouting at me in the angriest of German, if they ended their rant with "du Cracker!" I'd burst out laughing.
In my mind, West Virginia is the worst state because I found it so crushingly dull when we drove to see my grandparents in Pennsylvania as a child. This is a boredom that as been permanently etched into my mind.
There are a decent amount of Romney and Cracker. I wonder if floating sheep will do an analytic map of that.
"Cracker" is such a tame slur, though. Even if someone were shouting at me in the angriest of German, if they ended their rant with "du Cracker!" I'd burst out laughing.
It strikes me that elections may be characterized as a game somewhat analogous to chicken. However, it's not Obama playing against Romney, it's the candidates versus all the voters. Maybe people aren't thrilled with either candidate, but if they don't vote for their guy, they lose the game of chicken.
Rym talks about the winning strategy in a game of chicken: look your opponent in the eye, rip the steering wheel off, and throw it out the window.
How do we throw the steering wheel out the window?
That's the move where entire states/majority of voters in a state agree not to vote, or all vote independent, or all do write-in, etc. It won't happen. The end.
Edit: I also guess, on a higher level, you have States secede. Because that worked out so well before.
I think the internet (using youth vote as a very rough proxy) still made the best possible pick from the available options in the last two elections. My question is, how do we get lots of smart, sane, not-terrible people to commit to spending their lives being politicians?
There are a number of electoral reforms that would promote the election of moderates (and reduce crappy candidates getting through just because of party affiliation). This would start with using computers or independent commissions to draw district lines in every state, eliminating gerrymandering. I also like the system CA implemented recently where the general is held between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary, which will tend to elect moderates in more extreme districts. And get rid of the electoral college for a national popular vote.
That would enable more people, although I think most of the relatively sane ones will still have absolutely zero interest in shoveling the bullshit that comes with the job.
One thing that would be great would be the ability to easily find and watch a couple of hour-long interviews with each of the candidates. I feel that people can't help but expose themselves in that setting, far more than in debates and speeches. Those interviews are readily available on the presidential level, but it gets much more tricky to find them at the level of house races.
I am old enough to run for president. However, there is way too much bullshit involved that I don't ever want to deal with it. I remember one NPR commentator calling the presidential election process a "freak show," and he's right. Even if you are squeaky clean, people on your opposite side, no matter what side that may be, will be coming up with dirt, legitimate or otherwise, to use against you. No thanks.
States can't legally secede, so that isn't technically an option. ;^)
I'm sick of people saying this, because it's not practical. If you're going to secede, do you really care if it's legal or not? Rebels don't traditionally give a damn. It wasn't legal in 1861, but SC didn't give a damn. People are still trying to get away with nullification, and it's never worked.
That being said, I'm not stupid enough to think that any of this would happen.
Say, 50 quasi-independent jurisdictions, all subordinate to the federal government?
Seriously though, I'm not sure what splitting would improve. I can't imagine if say, Mississippi got kicked out of the US that Mississippians would be better off.
Comments
My perception of the state will always be colored by the White family.
http://disappearingromney.com/
Rym talks about the winning strategy in a game of chicken: look your opponent in the eye, rip the steering wheel off, and throw it out the window.
How do we throw the steering wheel out the window?
It won't happen. The end.
Edit: I also guess, on a higher level, you have States secede. Because that worked out so well before.
There are a number of electoral reforms that would promote the election of moderates (and reduce crappy candidates getting through just because of party affiliation). This would start with using computers or independent commissions to draw district lines in every state, eliminating gerrymandering. I also like the system CA implemented recently where the general is held between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary, which will tend to elect moderates in more extreme districts. And get rid of the electoral college for a national popular vote.
One thing that would be great would be the ability to easily find and watch a couple of hour-long interviews with each of the candidates. I feel that people can't help but expose themselves in that setting, far more than in debates and speeches. Those interviews are readily available on the presidential level, but it gets much more tricky to find them at the level of house races.
That being said, I'm not stupid enough to think that any of this would happen.
Seriously though, I'm not sure what splitting would improve. I can't imagine if say, Mississippi got kicked out of the US that Mississippians would be better off.