Polls: Romney could win popular vote and Obama the Electoral College

[Pointedstick]

Moda, I too chafe at the term "states' rights", and I understand that historically it has been a codeword for racism, but I think it's more useful to imagine it as a concept along the continuum of who should rule you. On one end of the continuum you rule yourself, and on the other end you bow to some far off plutocrat dictator in another country or maybe even another planet (in a dystopian sci-fi future).

The idea behind devolving power to the states was that states were closer to their citizens than the federal government was, and therefore could be more responsive to local conditions and offer a power structure that was closer to the "self-rule" end of the continuum. If this logic is correct and moral, then you would actually not want to stop at states; you would actually want power to be even more decentralized down to the county or city level, too, because it would be even closer to self-rule. Once the people with power over you are those who you might know personally and who may even be your friends and neighbors, I think that's a very different relationship with power than when the laws you're subject to come from thousands of miles away from people who may have lived very different lives from you and don't understand anything about what makes you tick (e.g. a senator from rural Montana voting on a law that affects urban Chicago, or vice versa).

Now in practice, many cultural areas will do intolerant or shocking things with this freedom. The south used their devolved sovereignty to enslave people. Most of the states banned sodomy. New York city imprisons you if you drive through it with an antique revolver locked in your trunk.

But should people be forcibly prevented from practicing their local traditions by outsiders who are shocked and horrified by them? That's the central question, and it's bedeviled us from slavery to anti-sodomy laws to gun control.

[notsheigetz]

I don't know... maybe you can clarify the point you're trying to make.   I really don't understand what you're trying to get at.

I'm a Vietnam Vet and as such my opinions are clouded with excessive marijuana smoking in my younger years and (way) excessive beer drinking in my latter years (the beer is only because marijuana is illegal, BTW).

The war in Vietnam was about self-determination of state/nationhood. According to CIA estimates if elections had been held when they were supposed to have been held according to the Geneva Accords, the communist Ho Chi Minh would have been elected as the president of a unified Vietnam with approximately 80% of the vote.

Instead we killed about 2 million Vietnamese and 58,000 of our own to give them a better form of government, although we ultimately failed in our grand crusade for freedom and democracy in Asia.

So my point is that the U.S. government has lots and lots of bombs and other weapons at its disposal to do whatever it wants to do whenever and wherever it wants to all around the world and if the measly state of Florida with its X number of electoral votes can somehow affect the power dynamic, well I'm all for states rights.

[foglifter]

Among other things, the college makes the small and rural areas some voice in the selection of president. Without it, the candidates would just focus on the urban areas.

It might be a good idea to give small states visibility,but unfortunately what we have is just a handful of states actually deciding the outcome of every presidential election. And my vote is ALWAYS wasted because I live in a superblue state. In fact, millions of votes are wasted - on both sides. I hate the electoral college system... the direct vote is so much more logical.

[moda0306]

Does having the entity of a state as a political power really prevent wars?  One could argue, actually, that if we didn't give small states more power via the electoral college, we'd be less likely to be engaging in unnecessary wars... The Election of Bush being a result of the electoral college beating the popular vote.  I mean I think it's pretty clear that the red states tend to be far more hawkish than blue states.

I tend to think states could have the ability to mute the tyranny of the federal government, but have more often concerned themselves with simply doling out different forms of tyranny than fight the tyranny of the Feds.

[Xan]

He didn't preserve any Union.  He replaced it with a different one.

[moda0306]

Xan,

Looks like this topic has moved to the Lincoln thread.

[moda0306]

Tenn,

You do have a point.  Dems usually only find their bleeding-heart anti-war religion when a Republican's in office, and Republicans usually find their live-and-let-live mentality when Dems are in office.

[murphy_p_t]

Republicans, not used to such behavior from Dems, have doubled down: They don't really object to Obama's wars/killings, just how he talks about it ("We really really REALLY want to bomb Iran; Obama only wants to really bomb them.")

+1

[Ad Orientem]

2

[RuralEngineer]

The electoral college is simply a way for the Government to gerrymander the presidential election.  As long as they can get 51% in enough states, it doesn't matter if they lose the rest by 90%.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, since it would bring more attention to the abomination that is gerrymandering), few elections are close enough for the electoral college gerrymander to be visible.  I suspect this election will be one of those few.

I personally am an advocate for setting up a simple screening process (no criminal record, some minimum level of education, ideally some way of quantifying a history of sound fiscal decision making) and then having a draft for congressional and presidential elections.  Nobody can turn down the appointment.  Everyone serves a single term of some predetermined length (staggered so we don't get 100% turnover).

I'm 100% convinced that a random lottery would yield a less divisive and more functional government and I doubt it would even be a remotely close contest.

Couple this with actually abiding by the Constitution so our "democracy" isn't two wolves and a sheep arguing what's for dinner and I think we'd really have something.

[D1984]

I personally am an advocate for setting up a simple screening process (no criminal record, some minimum level of education, ideally some way of quantifying a history of sound fiscal decision making) and then having a draft for congressional and presidential elections.  Nobody can turn down the appointment.  Everyone serves a single term of some predetermined length (staggered so we don't get 100% turnover).

What about those (hard-core libertarian and anarchist types, or those who for religious reasons) who could legitimately be classified as conscientous objectors - i.e. those whose consciences would give them no peace if they served in any governmental office? What about small business owners who were the only employees of their businesses and who would have to shut down if they were called to serve? What about employees who were concerned that if they left to serve two years in their state's legislature or six years in the US Senate or whatnot that their jobs would not be their when they got back?

I don't fundamentally object to a system of government by sortition instead of election but IMO it should be voluntary (if your number comes up and you don't want to go, you can either choose someone to go in your place-provided that person is OK with it-or else the Congressional selective service system has to spin the drum and draw another number. Anything less in this context is forced and involuntary servitude and is morally no better than slavery.

[RuralEngineer]

I don't think all of our men who fought tyranny in WWII were slaves.  A draft involves sacrifice. I'm pretty sure serving public office, even involuntarily, is a far cry from defending our nation in combat. 

It's a hypothetical fantasy that probably doesn't warrant serious discussion, but comparing an imposed Congressional office of finite term might be a touch of hyperbole.

[Pointedstick]

I don't think all of our men who fought tyranny in WWII were slaves.  A draft involves sacrifice.

Sure, any forced labor involves sacrifice--for the people who are forced to do the labor! Our men and women who served during through Vietnam were incredibly brave, but I think they should have been given the choice rather than threatened with violence. Being forced to work against one's will is the very definition of slavery, no matter how heroic the work may seem to others (or even to any people doing the work who didn't have to be forced and would have done it voluntarily anyway).

Understanding that the draft is slavery doesn't make keep me from believing that our servicemen and women are incredibly courageous, or evaluating the moral basis of the conflict they fought on its own merits.

[D1984]

I don't think all of our men who fought tyranny in WWII were slaves.  A draft involves sacrifice.

If the government forced someone to serve in the military in WWII (or WWI, or Korea, or Vietnam, or the US Civil War) then yes, those men who would not have been there of their own volition were certainly enslaved in a way (I don't mean this to denigrate those who served their country in that war or any other war...the moral opprobrium should be directed at the enslavers; the slaves should not be blamed). I mean, if I went into your house and put a gun in your face and said if you didn't serve in a job that I wanted you to serve in (never mind that you had already voluntarily chosen to employ yourself at something else) I'd kill or kidnap you then that would very well be considered enslavement...why should conscription be seen any differently? It's no more moral to FORCE a man (or woman) to fight a war than it is to force him/her to pick cotton.

True, a draft does involve sacrifice....the question is, why should I (or you, or anyone else) be forced to make said sacrifice, whether it is to fight a war, do civilian national service, or serve a few years in a public office? Let those who want to serve serve, and let the rest of us alone in peace. Whatever happened to concepts like individual self-ownership, live-and-let-live, and the ideal that you have a right to do anything (and a duty to do nothing) so long as in doing so you initiate no harm against anyone else?

I'm pretty sure serving public office, even involuntarily, is a far cry from defending our nation in combat.  

It's a hypothetical fantasy that probably doesn't warrant serious discussion, but comparing an imposed Congressional office of finite term might be a touch of hyperbole.

Draftees in some cases (Vietnam) served a finite term but that didn't make them any freer (except that they got out after a year or two instead of being stuck in the service for the whole war) if they didn't want to be there in the first place.

Forcing anyone to serve against their will in any government-mandated job is still involuntary servitude, regardless of the nature of the term of service. It is only a difference of degree, not one of kind. A shoplifter who steals a fifty cent candy bar is a thief; he is not made an honest man merely by the fact that the person beside him in the dock at court perhaps stole a car or robbed a bank and in either case committed a crime worth thousands of times more than what the first man did. One man's crime may be worse than the others in terms of degree, but when it comes down to the facts of the matter both are still thieves any way you slice it because both took something that was never rightfully theirs to have in the first place. The same goes for conscripted service; it may be more or less comfortable (and more or less dangerous) and may different in terms of how long one has to serve or what duties one performs, but if one did not choose to voluntarily serve in the first place and is not free to leave said service, the government has still stolen your time, your self-determination, and your freedom any way you slice it.

[hpowders]

Hurricane Sandy will be working against Mr Obama. A lot of NY and NJ dems Obama could count on, who feel abandoned, will be in a very surly mood in those voting cubicles and that means voting for Mr Romney instead.

[RuralEngineer]

Several false equivalencies there. Defending your nation from attack and digging ditches or picking cotton are not morally equivalent. I notice the conversation switched from a morally acceptable war of defense (WWII) to Vietnam quite quickly. Use straw men if you wish, but WWII would have lost utterly without a draft. Likely with a minimum of Axis casualties (assuming Russia was foolish enough to rely solely on volunteer forces).

[Pointedstick]

Several false equivalencies there. Defending your nation from attack and digging ditches or picking cotton are not morally equivalent.

But we're not talking about defending your nation from attack vs. digging ditches or picking cotton, we're talking about being forced against your will to kill strangers (not "defend your nation from attack", since that's not always what you were doing) vs. digging ditches or picking cotton. Obviously the actions themselves are morally different from the perspective of the enslaved person. But what about the enslaver? Is there any moral difference between forcing someone to pick your cotton and forcing someone to kill strangers?

To bring it closer to home, if I come over to your house and tell you to to work in my garden or else I'll shoot you, and then I go over to someone else's house and tell them to set fire to an enemy's house or I'll shoot him, is there any real moral difference between my two violent acts? And if there is, which act one is the worse one?

[hpowders]

Hurricane Sandy will be working against Mr Obama. A lot of NY and NJ dems Obama could count on, who feel abandoned, will be in a very surly mood in those voting cubicles and that means voting for Mr Romney instead.

Not sure I agree with the premise.  But even if you are right, polls I've seen (pre-Sandy) showed Obama with a big lead in those states.  It seems unlikely that enough minds would be changed in NY and NJ to make a difference.

In fact, I would generally say Sandy probably helps Obama in the aggregate.  Disasters give a president the opportunity to appear presidential.  In an election year, and especially so close to the election, this translates to votes across the country.  Probably not many, but I'm sure Obama will take whatever boost he can get in the battleground states.

Obama: "Voting is the best revenge".
Romney: "Vote for love of country".

Yeah. Very presidential.

[Ad Orientem]

I'm not sure I follow.  Has Obama been invoking revenge in his response to Sandy?

Maybe Sandy was Obama's revenge.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... cane-sandy

[hpowders]

Not sure I agree with the premise.  But even if you are right, polls I've seen (pre-Sandy) showed Obama with a big lead in those states.  It seems unlikely that enough minds would be changed in NY and NJ to make a difference.

In fact, I would generally say Sandy probably helps Obama in the aggregate.  Disasters give a president the opportunity to appear presidential.  In an election year, and especially so close to the election, this translates to votes across the country.  Probably not many, but I'm sure Obama will take whatever boost he can get in the battleground states.

Obama: "Vote for revenge".
Romney: "Vote for love of country".

Yeah. Very presidential.

I'm not sure I follow.  Has Obama been invoking revenge in his response to Sandy?

What response? He did a photo op with Gov. Christie of NJ, then resumed his campaign through the swing states as if nothing else mattered, except his re-election. What would have showed me something would have been if he cancelled all campaigning and remained in the northeast to help clear debris, feed the hungry, console the desperate. He attempts to act like he's one of us, but remains curiously dispassionate when push comes to shove. He's just another pol who doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Sounds familiar. Remember Katrina?

[foglifter]

Several false equivalencies there. Defending your nation from attack and digging ditches or picking cotton are not morally equivalent. I notice the conversation switched from a morally acceptable war of defense (WWII) to Vietnam quite quickly. Use straw men if you wish, but WWII would have lost utterly without a draft. Likely with a minimum of Axis casualties (assuming Russia was foolish enough to rely solely on volunteer forces).

Completely agree. Russia lost 20,000,000 people in WWII. I don't think Russia would have defeated Hitler without draft. They still have draft these days, albeit certain groups are except (e.g. full-time college students). They tried to move to US-like system based on hiring contractors, but so far the success is limited.

[Ad Orientem]

Citizenship in a free country is like membership in a club. It carries benefits and responsibilities. The benefits include the rule of law and protection from foreign invasion as well as the sundry other services provided by the state. Beyond the obvious requirement to obey the law, historically there have been three generally recognized obligations of citizenship in this country. One can think of them as dues if you like. Those being taxes, jury duty and military service. With rare exceptions the latter obligation has only been imposed during periods of extreme danger to the nation. But the concept is older than the Republic itself since colonists were often required to serve in the militia and keep powder and arms in good repair in case of need.

Being somewhat inclined to the libertarian ideal of minimalist government I abhor conscription. But I concede that in case of a real threat to the survival of the country it is a legitimate option. During peacetime however I think it should not be imposed. Nor should it be employed for aggressive overseas military adventures.

Those who believe they should enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities should be politely reminded that they are free to leave. An orderly society requires some form of state. And while we may disagree on the proper role and boundaries of the state, none save anarchists deny its necessity.

[hpowders]

Sort of like, "Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what can you do for your country!"

[foglifter]

Citizenship in a free country is like membership in a club. It carries benefits and responsibilities. The benefits include the rule of law and protection from foreign invasion as well as the sundry other services provided by the state. Beyond the obvious requirement to obey the law, historically there have been three generally recognized obligations of citizenship in this country. One can think of them as dues if you like. Those being taxes, jury duty and military service. With rare exceptions the latter obligation has only been imposed during periods of extreme danger to the nation. But the concept is older than the Republic itself since colonists were often required to serve in the militia and keep powder and arms in good repair in case of need.

Being somewhat inclined to the libertarian ideal of minimalist government I abhor conscription. But I concede that in case of a real threat to the survival of the country it is a legitimate option. During peacetime however I think it should not be imposed. Nor should it be employed for aggressive overseas military adventures.

Those who believe they should enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities should be politely reminded that they are free to leave. An orderly society requires some form of state. And while we may disagree on the proper role and boundaries of the state, none save anarchists deny its necessity.

You almost read my mind, Ad Orientem, thanks!

[Pointedstick]

For the people who believe that a state is required for a society, I ask: if tomorrow, you awoke to find that all levels of government had vanished, would you revert to callousness, barbarism, and cruelty, killing others for their property, or enslaving the weak for your own pleasure? Or do you instead believe that the state is necessary to keep other people from doing these things? If so, is it not possible that people such as yourself could peacefully live in a stateless society composed of similarly enlightened folks?