Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trevorum

Political trends

Recommended Posts

I voted for Obama. I vote for the party with the most positions that align with my own preferences for how our country is run. I do not vote my own pocketbook, and I do not vote based on events during the campaign like verbal gaffs or uncovered information about the candidates.

 

I agree with the dems on

 

* unions

* entitlement spending

* health care

* military spending cuts

* gay marriage

* energy

* education

* foreign policy

* federal regulation

* abortion

* secular nation

* affirmative action

* progressive taxes

 

I don't agree with them 100%. I agree with the repubs on

* gun control

* the death penalty

* jobs creation

* national language

 

I think they have both failed us in some key areas:

 

* Lobbying needs to be stopped

* Privatization of the prison system should be reversed

* Legalization of drugs (in favor)

* Illegal immigration (someone just do something please)

* Reducing wasteful government pork barrel spending

* Lowering barriers for third and fourth parties to get involved

* Reducing the % of the population currently incarcerated

 

I would vote for just about anyone who came out with a majority of my hot button issues on their side. I don't care what party they are from. The republicans can only win back the white house at this point if the democrats have a major scandal on the level of Bill Clinton's Lewinskigate. I don't think there is any platform change they are capable of that makes them relevant to anyone outside the Bible Belt. They've branded themselves the white christian gun lobbyist party filled with bigots with thick southern accents who want all of us to end up greeters at wal-mart or soldiers.

 

In the past, I voted for Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and now Obama.

 

Times change. Opinions change.

 

What really drove me to the left was Fox News. It wasn't until it arrived and started the outrageous nonsense they spew that I was driven to re-examine my own beliefs and start listening to people on the left. Fox News, more than anything else, made me a democrat. Rush Limbaugh helped a lot, too. I didn't realize how much I didn't want to be like him until I listened to him for a few years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... You listened to Rush Limbaugh for YEARS before deciding you didn't like him?? I think I knew after 3 to 5 minutes of listening to him..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say? I'm slow. I was raised a conservative, and it took a long time for me to go through the process of realizing I don't agree with them any longer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"well per the guy interviewed in the video they can regulate some of the local stuff you are listing.. They could make you have a seprate ballot with just the President & congress election on it (don't know if then you could give out two ballots on the same day, or would have to hold you local election and votes on changes to the constitution seprately.. He says they could regulate the machines you use.. Congress can set up a non-partisan agency to administer our elections.. Sounds to me like if states don't play fair, they could have these elections really regulated."

 

Close but not quite. States make the rules in the places, manner and time of elections for Representatives and Senator but Congress has the right to change those rules, or make their own rules. It's one of the weirdest clauses in the Constitution - its gives the states powers but lets Congress overrule the states on a whim.

 

What's key here is that Congress can only change the rules when it comes to election of Representatives and Senator (except for the place of choosing Senators - which has essentially been eliminated by the change to direct election of Senators from the legislatures appointing them. In all other electoral matters, including, apparently, the place, time and manner of eleccting the electors to the electoral college, it is up to the states to make their own individula rules.

 

But here's where Congresses power to make the rules for the election of their own members can affect how States run elections. Congress can pass a law that says that all states will use touch screen machines for the casting of ballots for US Senator and Representative and a state would have to comply, even if they prefer punch card balloting. Since the machines are expensive, and elections are expensive, the states would likely switch every election to the touch screen machines so they don't have to buy different equipment for different elections. A non-partisan agency to administer our elections? They would be limited to administering only elections for US Senate and House - not very efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't this also be for Presidential election? Of course the Presidential election is always held the same time as an election with Congress members, so it would be covered in that manner, but seems strange if it isn't included in the wording.

 

So are you reading verbage directly from the Constitution, or did you see a different show that covered this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds do NOT regulate the way states vote, other than to prohibit certain discriminatory actions.

 

Heck, in some states electors don't even have to vote for whom they were selected to vote for.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

 

No Legal Requirement

Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

 

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes

ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes

DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes

GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes

IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes

ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes

INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes

IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes

KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes

KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes

LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes

MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes

 

MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes

NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes

NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes

NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes

NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes

PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes

RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes

SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes

TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes

TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes

UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes

WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

 

"Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categoriesElectors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

 

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their partys candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been mulling over Trevorum's observation about Puerto Rico possibly achieving statehood. I wonder what all of us think are the pros and cons of such a thing. Up until now I hadn't worried much about it because I considered their decision-making to be deadlocked in a three-way struggle. Now that they've voted (however questionably) to join the states, and assuming the rest of the states decide to go with that option, I'm wondering how many of us have thought about this possibility and its consequences (and I'm not thinking here about how messed up the flag will be as a result). ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the PR statehood vote counts like a territorial petition for statehood, their constitution should already be acceptable, so all that remains is a bill to pass both houses by simple majority and signed by the president. I'm not sure if congress can override a veto in this case, but I don't think Obama would veto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×