Florida called for Obama, adding 29 electoral votes to bring his total to 332

[evanrick]

Even though president Obama didn't need to win any swing state to be re-elected due to Republicans pathetic weakness as a party, he won them all, adding Florida to the list and upping Obamas electoral vote count to 332.

But what worries me is the fact that Florida took 4 days to decide where their electoral votes would go, setting up another scenario where if the election hinged on Florida, four days is plenty of time for voting shenanigans.

If anyone should be worried about this its republicans, as Florida has gone for the democrat in the past 2 elections, they should be wanting electoral reform as Romneys popular vote total was much closer to Obama compared to the electoral college, only 3.3 million votes behind. A 3% difference comapred to a 60% difference should raise some eyebrows.

What is even more stunning about the election is that republicans were able to maintain control of the house even though they received far far fewer votes than Democrats did, setting up a true banana republic where all votes are counted differently.

If this election has shown anything its that democracy requires constant upkeep so it does not rot away into oblivion.

[frankfrank]

I hope that Congress can agree to come up with some minimal federal legislation on elections (because I believe, now, there is NONE or very little), enough to assure that disenfranchisement as happened this year can never happen again. It is in the nation's interest to have FAIR elections nationwide, when federal candidates are running every two years.

It is in the nation's interest to have fair elections at ALL times, in face.

Are there any court cases still pending, involving voter disenfranchisement during the 2012 cycle? I hope the courts rule favorably, if so.

However, an ugly case involving the 1965 Voting Rights Act is winding its way into the Supreme Court. Hellishly scary.

[bankside]

Just because I've read more than one headline claiming Obama took Florida "by a razor-thin margin of only 74 000 votes" I'd like to point out that he won it by a factor of 138 times more than George Bush Junior did back when that whole debacle began.

Even pretending George Bush was entitled to all 537 votes the Supreme Court eventually gave him, Obama comes out with one hundred thirty-seven times more convincing of a victory. That's not razor-thin; that's an ass-kicking.

[Kulindahr]

So Obama got over one and a half times as many electoral votes. That should be considered impressive.

THough I'm still pissed at Romney for ruining my prediction he wouldn't get even two hundred.

[JB3]

Even though president Obama didn't need to win any swing state to be re-elected due to Republicans pathetic weakness as a party, he won them all, adding Florida to the list and upping Obamas electoral vote count to 332.

But what worries me is the fact that Florida took 4 days to decide where their electoral votes would go, setting up another scenario where if the election hinged on Florida, four days is plenty of time for voting shenanigans.

If anyone should be worried about this its republicans, as Florida has gone for the democrat in the past 2 elections, they should be wanting electoral reform as Romneys popular vote total was much closer to Obama compared to the electoral college, only 3.3 million votes behind. A 3% difference comapred to a 60% difference should raise some eyebrows.

What is even more stunning about the election is that republicans were able to maintain control of the house even though they received far far fewer votes than Democrats did, setting up a true banana republic where all votes are counted differently.

If this election has shown anything its that democracy requires constant upkeep so it does not rot away into oblivion.

Your opinion on the house has already been thoroughly debunked.

[JB3]

Just because I've read more than one headline claiming Obama took Florida "by a razor-thin margin of only 74 000 votes" I'd like to point out that he won it by a factor of 138 times more than George Bush Junior did back when that whole debacle began.

Even pretending George Bush was entitled to all 537 votes the Supreme Court eventually gave him, Obama comes out with one hundred thirty-seven times more convincing of a victory. That's not razor-thin; that's an ass-kicking.

74,000 votes when the total votes cast was almost 8.5 million IS razor thin.

[GiancarloC]

Your opinion on the house has already been thoroughly debunked.

Not from what I've seen.

And if there wasn't widespread disenfranchisement the margin would have been larger.

[evanrick]

Your opinion on the house has already been thoroughly debunked.

the republicans have been debunked, you have no credibility sir.

[CoolBlue71]

@ http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Here's one thing that's cool about Florida.…

In Duval County, where Jacksonville is the county seat, it is still in the Republican column but it is trending towards the Democrats. Generally it is. That's because I took a look at the last four elections and how that county carried. (After all, Jacksonville is the No. 1 populous city in the state. And national trends show Democrats generally winning more and more in the population centers.)

Here are some numbers:

FLORIDA
2000: George W. Bush R+0.01
2004: George W. Bush R+5.01
2008: Barack Obama D+2.81
2012: Barack Obama D+0.88 (unofficial)

DUVAL COUNTY
2000: R+16.75
2004: R+16.16
2008: R+1.90
2012: R+3.61 (unofficial)

DUVAL COUNTY-VS-FLORIDA
2000: R+16.74
2004: R+11.15
2008: R+4.71
2012: R+4.49 (unofficial)


What I'm saying is this: If we're now in a realigning period for presidential elections giving advantage to the Democrats (and I have the feeling we are) … the previously built-in advantage for Republicans in Duval County is no longer there. And that's going to make it easier for Democrats, who would likely be winning a given election cycle, to carry the state of Florida. (Add to this that, since 1928, Fla. has been in the column for presidential winners in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections which include 2012 re-election for Barack Obama.) Duval County has really trended away from such core-GOP support, and hopefully the Democrats (directly responsible for campaigns in Fla.) are now aware of this.

[Kulindahr]

Your opinion on the house has already been thoroughly debunked.

This is rather non-specific. Which opinion do you mean?

If you're referring to the fact that this has been the most obstructionist House in the nation's history, you're far, far off base -- just read Do Not Ask What Good We Do. If you're referring to something else, please tell us.

[JB3]

This is rather non-specific. Which opinion do you mean?

If you're referring to the fact that this has been the most obstructionist House in the nation's history, you're far, far off base -- just read Do Not Ask What Good We Do. If you're referring to something else, please tell us.

He started a thread about the fact that House republicans received 1% less vote than House democrats, so they shouldn't have the majority in the house.

[GiancarloC]

He started a thread about the fact that House republicans received 1% less vote than House democrats, so they shouldn't have the majority in the house.

No they shouldn't. It's based on principle. If it was 50/50 or 51/49 it should be appropriated that way.

[JB3]

No they shouldn't. It's based on principle. If it was 50/50 or 51/49 it should be appropriated that way.

That's not how the house works. It has never worked that way.

[GiancarloC]

That's not how the house works. It has never worked that way.

Where did I say that's how it works? Still not reading what I'm saying? The reason behind the statement is based on principle. I don't care how it has worked. That's not the point. This is about having a system that's fair.

[JB3]

The system IS fair. Both of you are looking at it from a national perspective (total votes). With the House, you HAVE to look at it from a state by state perspective. The number of votes in total is completely irrelevant to any discussion.

[GiancarloC]

Wow. Read what I post please. The system isn't fair and some regions get more representation then they should. I'm looking at this from a very clear perspective. One certainly likes to swing into thin air.

[Kulindahr]

Where did I say that's how it works? Still not reading what I'm saying? The reason behind the statement is based on principle. I don't care how it has worked. That's not the point. This is about having a system that's fair.

Fair is however the several states decide to do it. If California decided to make their House delegation proportionate by their state's vote, that would be great. A state could even decide to award all their seats to the party with the most votes in an election (wouldn't hold up on appeal to SCOTUS, prolly, but theoretically they could). The point is that the Congressmen represent the people in their states; they do not represent the people of the nation.

[Kulindahr]

Wow. Read what I post please. The system isn't fair and some regions get more representation then they should. I'm looking at this from a very clear perspective. One certainly likes to swing into thin air.

What isn't fair in the electoral college is that many states hardly have a voice at all. If we're going to reform it, give each state a minimum of five votes and place a maximum limit as well.

[GiancarloC]

It's only fair to give states with greater populations more voice and more say in the system as they have more people. Many here in California don't think it's fair some midwest states have the sway they do.

[Kulindahr]

It's only fair to give states with greater populations more voice and more say in the system as they have more people. Many here in California don't think it's fair some midwest states have the sway they do.

Why should any state have a bigger say than any other? If you want truly fair, each state should have one vote.

[Rolyo85]

Um, because states don't have equal percentage of the population?

[GiancarloC]

Why should any state have a bigger say than any other? If you want truly fair, each state should have one vote.

Rolyo said it. Some states have more people. Some don't. Why should North Dakota have an equal say as California?

[JB3]

Rolyo said it. Some states have more people. Some don't. Why should North Dakota have an equal say as California?

Because California is not the United states. If bigger states were given that much influence, the interests of ALL Americans would not be served by their government.

- - - Updated - - -

It's only fair to give states with greater populations more voice and more say in the system as they have more people. Many here in California don't think it's fair some midwest states have the sway they do.

To be frank, no one cares. The system was set up exactly as it was to prevent larger states from ignoring the interests of smaller states. What you describe would be more unfair than anything we've yet seen. (electoral college included)

[JB3]

Fair is however the several states decide to do it. If California decided to make their House delegation proportionate by their state's vote, that would be great. A state could even decide to award all their seats to the party with the most votes in an election (wouldn't hold up on appeal to SCOTUS, prolly, but theoretically they could). The point is that the Congressmen represent the people in their states; they do not represent the people of the nation.

Exactly. The marginally higher vote totals for Democratic members of congress is irrelevant when discussing representation in the house or Senate.

[GiancarloC]

Because California is not the United states. If bigger states were given that much influence, the interests of ALL Americans would not be served by their government.

Double rapid fire response... read what I posted again please. When I hear one say that smaller states should get more representation, that basically means those in smaller states will get more representation because they just live in a smaller state... and since I live in a state with a bigger population I matter less. In that case, I better get my bags packing... Idaho or North Dakota here I come.

Lets make things truly proportional. I know it doesn't suit the right wing agenda, but it suits the interests of reality.

To be frank, no one cares. The system was set up exactly as it was to prevent larger states from ignoring the interests of smaller states. What you describe would be more unfair than anything we've yet seen. (electoral college included)

To be frank, I don't care about anything in this post. It's irritating how you don't pay attention to what I have written.

[opinterph]

It's irritating how you don't pay attention to what I have written.

Writing wishful things does not change the Constitution.

[GiancarloC]

Writing wishful things does not change the Constitution.

My points are on my own perspective of representation and how proportional representation would be more suitable.

[evanrick]

The system IS fair. Both of you are looking at it from a national perspective (total votes). With the House, you HAVE to look at it from a state by state perspective. The number of votes in total is completely irrelevant to any discussion.

no its not. that is the principle of the senate where there is a filibuster, the house is simple majority. guess what that translates into...EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

[CoolBlue71]

Um, because states don't have equal percentage of the population?

Correct. The requirement is a minimum of three electoral votes for any given state. District of Columbia is 3 electors. Every state must have two reps in the U.S. Senate. The congressional seats are determined by results of the U.S. Census Bureau, which among many things, tracks populations. And every state must have at least one rep in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Kulindahr]

Um, because states don't have equal percentage of the population?

So? This isn't the "United People of America", it's the "United States of America". To be fair, each state should have one vote for electing their president.

[Kulindahr]

Rolyo said it. Some states have more people. Some don't. Why should North Dakota have an equal say as California?

Because each is a state. Look at it this way: in a board of directors of a foundation, should one director have more say because he has a family of eight, while another is single?

[Rolyo85]

False equivalency.

More people voting for their president obviously equals more electoral votes. If anything smacks of communism in this forum, this opinion is close to it. Artificially equating unequal things does justice to nobody.

[Kulindahr]

Because California is not the United states. If bigger states were given that much influence, the interests of ALL Americans would not be served by their government.

- - - Updated - - -



To be frank, no one cares. The system was set up exactly as it was to prevent larger states from ignoring the interests of smaller states. What you describe would be more unfair than anything we've yet seen. (electoral college included)

Yes. The practical effect of doing away with the electoral college would be a form of feudalism, where we'd get presidents who have no incentive at all to care about the interests of a quarter of the states, leaving those states with only the Senate as a defense against being run as rural reserves by the populous. Many states in the west understand this, because large chunks of their land are in effect feudal fiefs held by an absentee landlord who requires them to spend money enforcing laws but who get no compensation for doing so. I speak, of course, of the national forests and BLM and other lands, which by their mere presence require states to spend a good deal more on infrastructure without any return on that investment because the land is locked away from yielding any income.

The effect is seen in Oregon in the way that how the rural counties are run is determined by the few populous counties. Almost no concern is given to what will benefit the people who live on the land; the open spaces are treated as the preserve of the urban well-to-do for their preferences and pleasure, and the actual residents on the land are regarded as either caretakers or even a nuisance. It's a de facto feudal system that imposes the burden of making rural areas pleasing to people who don't live there on those who do.

[Kulindahr]

Double rapid fire response... read what I posted again please. When I hear one say that smaller states should get more representation, that basically means those in smaller states will get more representation because they just live in a smaller state... and since I live in a state with a bigger population I matter less. In that case, I better get my bags packing... Idaho or North Dakota here I come.

No, you matter just as much as someone in any other state: you get one vote toward determining your state's position on things.

What you're really saying is we should abolish the states and make them merely administrative districts.

Lets make things truly proportional. I know it doesn't suit the right wing agenda, but it suits the interests of reality.

That's exactly what I'm saying: proportional would mean one state = one vote. The interests your proposal would serve are those of the wealthy who want the rural parts of the country to shut up, do as they're told, and maintain the back country as a playground for the urbanites.

To be frank, I don't care about anything in this post. It's irritating how you don't pay attention to what I have written.

Writing wishful things does not change the Constitution.

Bingo. And the Constitution was written to serve reality -- though I suspect that if they'd conceived of how much more populous some states would become compared to most, there would have been further protections for the small states.

[Kulindahr]

My points are on my own perspective of representation and how proportional representation would be more suitable.

More suitable for tyranny -- that much is true.

How about we run the UN the way you say -- let China have four times the say that the U.S. does, India three times, and so on. By your reasoning, that would be "more suitable".

[Kulindahr]

False equivalency.

More people voting for their president obviously equals more electoral votes. If anything smacks of communism in this forum, this opinion is close to it. Artificially equating unequal things does justice to nobody.

GC is the one doing a false equivalency -- he's making state = voters. But a state is a state, and all states are equal. To maintain otherwise is to promote a tyranny of populous states over the less populous.

If the electoral college is ever eliminated, I dearly hope that all states with fewer than a dozen electoral votes have the good sense to close their borders to the rest, and pursue their case at the UN and anywhere else possible.

[Rolyo85]

More populous states have bigger needs = need bigger representation. It's simple math and logic. Trying to enforce uniformity between unequal things is absurd...

[GiancarloC]

More populous states have bigger needs = need bigger representation. It's simple math and logic. Trying to enforce uniformity between unequal things is absurd...

I'm agreeing with this statement, kulindahr. THat doesn't mean my views are more likely to cause tyranny. It's a false accusation you have thrown at me in the past and it's pretty meaningless. I am for a democratic system, period. Just because I think differently than you does not mean I am in favor of tyranny. The constant accusations makes it very difficult to interact.

And the wealthy who want rural parts to shut up? LOL Since when? Do you know where most of the working class live? In cities. Try again.

[Kulindahr]

If you give the more populous states more say, you get de facto feudalism. It's how the East got away with treating the western states like resource bins for decades, leaving us with western states looking large on the maps but being rather small in reality because so much of our land isn't owned by us. The populous states will just ignore the interests of the small, turning the small states' populations into serfs.

That's just reality. It's tyranny, no matter how much you call it "democracy". It is NOT "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", unless you make those different groups of people: government of the less populous states by and for the people of the more populous.

I notice that you didn't answer the question about giving China four times the voice the US has in the UN, so in accordance with ancient common law, I'll take that as consent.

[GiancarloC]

That's not feudalism. It's democracy. But I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I can't argue with one who keeps using labels because another has a different viewpoint of how things should work. In other western countries, they do it the way I describe. As far as China, that's not relevant. The UN isn't elected by the people.

Less populous states getting more a disproportionate amount of power is not fair to those who live in more populated states.

[Kulindahr]

I'm agreeing with this statement, kulindahr. That doesn't mean my views are more likely to cause tyranny. It's a false accusation you have thrown at me in the past and it's pretty meaningless. I am for a democratic system, period. Just because I think differently than you does not mean I am in favor of tyranny. The constant accusations makes it very difficult to interact.

And the wealthy who want rural parts to shut up? LOL Since when? Do you know where most of the working class live? In cities. Try again.

You need a reality dose -- it is tyranny. I live under it, because what we have in Oregon is the sort of system you want. The people in the cities decide how everything is going to be run, and those of us in the rural areas have to shape everything we do to conform to the way the urbanites want it. Our farmland, forests, rivers, harbors, roads, and everything have to conform to what the urbanites want, whether those are realistic or not, whether they're good for us or not -- and more often than not, the requirements focus in actuality on how the urbanites think the countryside should look when they decide to visit.

The Founding Fathers rightly feared democracy for the very reason that it tends to tyranny. Democracy at root is just a variant on "might makes right". It isn't inherently just, or moral; the only real thing democracy has going for it is that it leaves the governed with less room to complain about the way they're governed. The electoral college is there as one check against the tyranny of democracy -- and it needs strengthened.

[Kulindahr]

That's not feudalism. It's democracy. But I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I can't argue with one who keeps using labels because another has a different viewpoint of how things should work. In other western countries, they do it the way I describe. As far as China, that's not relevant. The UN isn't elected by the people.

Less populous states getting more a disproportionate amount of power is not fair to those who live in more populated states.

Less populous states already have a "disproportionate amount of power" -- they have too little. A state is a state, and since the president is the president of the states, each state should get one vote. See, you're doing your fantasy bit again that opinterph pointed out: the constitution makes plain that the president isn't elected by the people, he's elected by the states. And the only reason the Founders caved and let the big states have more say was to keep the colonies together to finish getting independence.

And the reason for that is obvious to anyone not starry-eyed over ideology: in practice, the populous states will use the less populous for their own purposes and ride roughshod over the people of the less populous. The less populous states will be like estates with absentee landlords, landlords who give no care to what's good for the people to whom the state actually belongs.

It would be far, far better for liberty to have fifty independent nations than to go the other way.

[GiancarloC]

I'll have to agree to disagree. It's not tyranny. By slapping labels on my views it's incredibly difficult to have any discussion here. Have a nice day.

[bankside]

You need a reality dose -- it is tyranny. I live under it, because what we have in Oregon is the sort of system you want. The people in the cities decide how everything is going to be run, and those of us in the rural areas have to shape everything we do to conform to the way the urbanites want it. Our farmland, forests, rivers, harbors, roads, and everything have to conform to what the urbanites want, whether those are realistic or not, whether they're good for us or not -- and more often than not, the requirements focus in actuality on how the urbanites think the countryside should look when they decide to visit.

Why are these things more yours than theirs? Proximity?

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, all states are equal parts of America. Someone in Maryland is just as American and has as much claim to any part of the country as someone in California...

[Kulindahr]

Why are these things more yours than theirs? Proximity?

Because we live here. Why should we be serfs on our own land? That's the result when people who live somewhere else get to tell us what to do.

[bankside]

Because we live here. Why should we be serfs on our own land? That's the result when people who live somewhere else get to tell us what to do.

Do you mean as regards land titled to you or crown land. (I'm sure you must call it something other than crown land. State land?)

[Kulindahr]

Do you mean as regards land titled to you or crown land. (I'm sure you must call it something other than crown land. State land?)

Oregon land belongs to Oregonians. All national forest land here should be confiscated by the state and be state forests. There's no authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to own parts of states.

And private property is supposed to be private property. It is any longer only in name; the private property of those in rural areas has policy set by those who only see it on weekends.

[bankside]

Oregon land belongs to Oregonians. All national forest land here should be confiscated by the state and be state forests. There's no authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to own parts of states.

And private property is supposed to be private property. It is any longer only in name; the private property of those in rural areas has policy set by those who only see it on weekends.

Presumably the US government could buy land from Oregonians and own it with similar rights to any other private property holder.

Anyway, if we're talking about things like forests, then if they are Oregonian, I fail to see why someone from urban Portland should have less of a say than you based only on proximity. Indeed for something that might be seen as the birthright of all Oregonians, one might say you are taking advantage of it in ways not easily accessible to an urbanite. Let them have their weekends.

I agree that private property is a different matter. I like the idea that people can do what they want on their own land, with two provisos. First, whatever they do to the air or water that leaves their property is equally my business, as well as perhaps what they do to the land itself that might last beyond a natural human lifespan. Second, that people have the opportunity to establish and settle near each other with compatible land uses in mind, so that if I desire a rural life and my neighbours do as well, we can both be assured that we will mutually preserve that way of life through the use of our land. This would prevent both me and my neighbour from building a high-rise, but I feel the intrusion is warranted if it is for the betterment of our coordinated purposes. Or if I desire a forested community and my neighbours (other property owners) do as well, we can see to it that the character of our community is maintained. A purchaser would not have the full use of their property if they could not cut down all the trees on their land, but I feel property owners should be able to agree at the community level whether to allow that or not.

[Rolyo85]

So who owns Grand Canyon?