G W Bush re-elected:(((Election Law must be changed! SEE HOW...

[curious_]

How about this: Pass the test and your vote is worth one vote

This is more complex than that. To minimize your reading work, I am highlighting some important aspects below that'll help you find some answers.

I'm sure you have no idea of unbelievably insulting that is to rural Americans. As if they are incapable of having opinions on anything because they are too busy milking cows and screwing sheep.

NO, I am not saying that. They are excellent citizens and superbly smart, but in their own ways. It's that they don't care all that much how GWbush performs among G-8 leaders, his global policy, they think he is strong and charismatic. If they think that they are experts on international politics as well, I'd disagree with that. This is the sphere where they are least qualified. But they are still terrific parents, grandparents, business owners and managers or local elected officials or their consultants. But they don't care what kind of an image Bush projects across the globe, his stance as a global political manger and peace broker. See the difference?

Further, you seem to have the impression that people here live in a complete box- this is untrue. What would you think if I told you that one of good friends is Nigerian, that I buy my morning coffee from a Jordianian man with whom I am also great friends with? How about if I offer that I am also great friends with a chinese family? and all this from a small town in teh midwest of about 40,000 people?

That my be you, and you'd still get a bad exposure stemming from how political tastes are shaped across the board. And no, I am not claiming that you live there in a box; it's not even that I am claiming that many of those 40,000 people are dumb or dumber than a NYer; not at all, they can be superbly smart but in their own ways. They simply don't think all that often about global politics, Bush's international stance and frankly, they don't care all that much if Bush is a moron, stupid and undisciplined as far as global politics is concerned. What they care most is their own local affairs--that is objectively shaped because of their very own exposure and interests and so.. ..so even if they (say they) voted for Bush's "foreign policy" they were in fact thinking (voting) for Bush's strictly local polices, subsidies..most likely.....so design a system that gives them and others like them a greater say and leverage in their local politics, separate them from global political matters where they have little direct stakes and interest and understanding. Many of those simple didn't realize that Bush started a war for a number of reasons supported by his (aids) ideas, the principal one being self-serving--to get re-elected.

...political participation and voting have increasing become real-time occupancies that require some requisite skills drawn from one's sustained political engagement, political awareness, broad vision and the capability to isolate important, lasting issues from euphemism and political role playing. Since many view political participation as a transient yet full-time occupancy requiring relevant background and vision on voters' part, it is only in this sense that I insist that people with detached professions such as farmers in the south and elsewhere will be far more susceptible to political manipulation with the result of them either not caring enough or becoming complacent with any electoral outcome.

You have to realize that political tastes are principally created and perpetuated by the secular, but qualified minority rather than by a simple plurality and this has nothing to do with being undemocratic. The rest, they have a limited political experience or at best they don't care enough to streamline their political system, to push for a radical change and they end up with having something second tier and to be honest they are complacent with whatever they have. They won this time but they were not conscious winners.

I somehow have preference for geographic distribution (by states, perhaps) because you can have a smart communist or a stupid jew, etc. and it would be more difficult to identify individual groups according to your categorization. So the geographic approach would do I think, although a better or combined system can be designed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I somehow have preference for geographic distribution (by states, perhaps) because you can have a smart communist or a stupid jew, etc. and it would be more difficult to identify individual groups according to your categorization. So the geographic approach would do I think, although a better or combined system can be designed.[/B]

Tell me:
In the 2004 election, if everyon from the red states were woth 0.75 votes and everyone from the blue states were worth 1.25 votes, how would the result of the election change?

While pondering that, I'll suggest this:
You, presently, are illustrating why elitist liberals lose elections.

 

[mike49]

Curious,

I'm willing to play within the basic premise that you have outlined. Your last post held ideas that I understood from the very beginning. You don't have to explain what I already understand to be the problem as you see it.

How to overcome these problems is what I need to understand. Post an election system that will solve the problem as you see it. Start from scratch if you want. Or, work within the current system.

I'm looking forward. It may not always be that NY votes for the "smart" candidate. It may be that Wyoming does not always vote for the "stupid" candidate. Your problem exists with the "Voter". Not the state. To insure your Smart candidate always wins, that first begins with the voter.

NY is a perfect example because most counties in NY went for Bush, while the cities went for Kerry. The majority of people in NY went for Kerry. Those that did not I doubt were concerned with subsidies and local farming issues. So, that goes to the heart of your previous statements on "intelligence". That is the key here, it would seem to me. Most of the people in the heartland are not farmers. They are the same type of people you would find in up-state NY. Regular blue-collar workers.

 

[curious_]

how would the result of the election change?

Plz see the answer (framed) at the top of this page.

You don't have to explain what I already understand to be the problem as you see it.

OK.

Your problem exists with the "Voter". Not the state.

Yes, that's more accurate. But that would present us with an identification problem. You cannot really test an individual voter and like another poster said it may not have to do with general education or specialized one. It is primarily an *exposure* thing. See:

...and all this from a small town in teh midwest of about 40,000 people?

That my be you, and you'd still get a bad exposure stemming from how political tastes are shaped across the board.....They simply don't think all that often about global politics, Bush's international stance....What they care most is their own local affairs--that is objectively shaped because of their very own exposure and interests and so..

For practical purposes, therefore:

I somehow have preference for geographic distribution (by states, perhaps) because you can have a smart communist or a stupid jew, etc. and it would be more difficult to identify individual groups according to [another] categorization.

NY is a perfect example because most counties in NY went for Bush, while the cities went for Kerry. The majority of people in NY went for Kerry.

That's true.

So, that goes to the heart of your previous statements on "intelligence"

Nope. not intelligence. Just different interests and exposure.

Most of the people in the heartland are not farmers.

I don't necessarily mean farmers; I brought them as an example. Yet, those ppl have different concerns (local in nature) and they get a different exposure on a daily basis to cultivate those concerns.

YOU: Post an election system that will solve the problem as you see it. Start from scratch if you want.

Another poster (on a different forum)

: For a positon as complex as the one you've adopted you've yet to offer any reasonable formal case agains the system more sophisticated than "Bush is a monkey"

ME: ...are you offering me to put forward a formal proposal on the details of the kind of a system I'd be in favor of and in the process get lost in the details? neeeeeeeeeeeehh, I am not stupid enough to do that. I'd better first garner some consensus, not necessarily, some convergence on the big picture we are discussing...some convergence among dissenting opinions on the principles that a systemic change is deemed necessary and then I can put forward details...I am not that lazy to do that. Haven't you just said that such a convergence stands a chance of simple originating from common sense abiding people that are no geniuses but good judges of human character ("Forrest Gump" example). So it's still doable now and a blue print will follow. Just design the initiatives appropriately. And this will not just "garner laughs" you'll see.

 

[mike49]

[quote="curious]ME: ...are you offering me to put forward a formal proposal on the details of the kind of a system I'd be in favor of and in the process get lost in the details? neeeeeeeeeeeehh, I am not stupid enough to do that. I'd better first garner some consensus, not necessarily, some convergence on the big picture we are discussing...some convergence among dissenting opinions on the principles that a systemic change is deemed necessary and then I can put forward details...I am not that lazy to do that. Haven't you just said that such a convergence stands a chance of simple originating from common sense abiding people that are no geniuses but good judges of human character ("Forrest Gump" example). So it's still doable now and a blue print will follow. Just design the initiatives appropriately. And this will not just "garner laughs" you'll see.[/quote]

Not a "formal proposal". Any proposal. Ideas on how to fix what you see as wrong. You have rejected my "test". We have moved along well so far. I can't see why a "test" still cannot be of use. You could ask the voter questions on Abortion, France, Dictatorship, Welfare, Gun Rights, all sorts of issues of the day and then apply a value on the answers based on some formula. They would then move to the next step of getting a ballot, you could have a color coded ballot, Red, green, purple, yellow, etc. All the same ballots just different color. They vote and put their ballot in the right color box. At the end of the day all counted with the various ballots given a scale of worth. Green would be thrown out completely, yellow would deserve one quarter vote, etc..

 

[curious_]

I can't see why a "test" still cannot be of use. You could ask the voter questions on Abortion, France, Dictatorship, Welfare, Gun Rights

You can pose a 15- or 50-qeustion multiple choice test to a voter but see such a "test" won't be helpful. If you did that you'd be very misguided...see the thing is,

...the middle of the US lands is vast and even though it is less densely populated Wyoming, Idaho, rural Montana...voters have a way of dictating their views to NY, MD, MA...voters and the thing is WY, ID, MT are invariably conservative and they will stay that way forever...because a rural voter will always more closely identify themselves with a person like GWBush than with a Kerry-type individual. Not that they have some innate adversity to a more rigorous, intellectual candidate but the thing is a Georgie-boy type is more close to their hearts, its like--perhaps he is a bastard but he is our own bastard...to them he is more down-to-earth, far more easily embraceable and to them personality is above politics..first he is their bastard, then a politician. And because global policies don't get a chance to be decided by a secular but qualified minority (instead of unqualified plurality), under the current desing of the system the rurals will get an edge in superimposing their strictly local policies over America's intenrational standing and the difference between the two gets blurred as a result. Some profit very nicely from this.

Therefore, in answer to your statement

Not a "formal proposal". Any proposal. Ideas on how to fix what you see as wrong.

I have this solution:

A better approach would be to assign numerical values to voters from any given state. For example, each vote cast by a voter from NY state would carry a weigh of 1.2; whereas, Wyoming voters would get a weight of say 0.8....I somehow have preference for geographic distribution (by states, perhaps) because you can have a smart communist or a stupid jew, etc. and it would be more difficult to identify individual groups according to [another]categorization. So the geographic approach would do I think, although a better or combined system can be designed.

 

[mike49]

Curious,

Your still running into problems you had originally. The Electoral College.

It does not matter if a candidate wins by one in NY or a zillion.

Your solution only effects the popular vote, which is meaningless. A state is not required to allow any vote for President outside of it's own legislature.

 

[curious_]

Your still running into problems you had originally. The Electoral College.

I know. I mean the electoral votes...but how many electoral votes you get in a given state depends on the size of population or the number of voters in that particular state. So you would either directly or indirectly index electoral votes and in this way affect the weight that a state has in the total # of electoral votes across the nation.

It does not matter if a candidate wins by one in NY or a zillion.

Sure. That would matter under popular vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know. I mean the electoral votes...but how many electoral votes you get in a given state depends on the size of population or the number of voters in that particular state. So you would either directly or indirectly index electoral votes and in this way affect the weight that a state has in the total # of electoral votes across the nation.

Yes, yes, yes.
Change the rules to guarantee that you win.
Very democratic of you.

Tell us:
Why can't you win fair and sqaure?

 

[curious_]

Yes, yes, yes.
Change the rules to guarantee that you win.
Very democratic of you.

Yes, I think the rules must become more democratic (these are all man-made rules).

Tell us:
Why can't you win fair and sqaure?

Because

...the middle of the US lands is vast and even though it is less densely populated Wyoming, Idaho, rural Montana...voters have a way of dictating their views to NY, MD, MA...voters and the thing is WY, ID, MT are invariably conservative and they will stay that way forever...because a rural voter will always more closely identify themselves with a person like GWBush than with a Kerry-type individual. Not that they have some innate adversity to a more rigorous, intellectual candidate but the thing is a Georgie-boy type is more close to their hearts, its like--perhaps he is a bastard but he is our own bastard...to them he is more down-to-earth, far more easily embraceable and to them personality is above politics..first he is their bastard, then a politician. And because global policies don't get a chance to be decided by a secular but qualified minority (instead of unqualified plurality), under the current desing of the system the rurals will get an edge in superimposing their strictly local policies over America's intenrational standing and the difference between the two gets blurred as a result. Some profit very nicely from this.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Yes, I think the rules must become more democratic (these are all man-made rules).

How about you hop into a time machine, go back to 1787 and take your argument up with the founding fathers who put the elctoral college in the Constitution for a reason. We live in a republic my friend. Always have.

...because a rural voter will always more closely identify themselves with a person like GWBush than with a Kerry-type individual. Not that they have some innate adversity to a more rigorous, intellectual candidate

More intellectual? Did you know Bush got better grades at Yale than Kerry did?


but the thing is a Georgie-boy type is more close to their hearts, its like--perhaps he is a bastard but he is our own bastard...to them he is more down-to-earth, far more easily embraceable and to them personality is above politics..first he is their bastard, then a politician. And because global policies don't get a chance to be decided by a secular but qualified minority (instead of unqualified plurality), under the current desing of the system the rurals will get an edge in superimposing their strictly local policies over America's intenrational standing and the difference between the two gets blurred as a result. Some profit very nicely from this.

If the democrats are so smart then perhaps they'll pull their heads out of their asses and find ways to elicit the support of the "un-educated" rural Americans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I think the rules must become more democratic (these are all man-made rules).

How does counting a person in one state as more votes than a person in a another state make things "more democratic"?

How would you react to a proposal making the people in red states worth 1.2 people and the people in blue states worth 0.8 people?

Because....

...you think people in flyover country are stupid.
Boy, that sure sells ME.

You lost the election -- and it wasn because of the system. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

 

[Axismaster]

How does counting a person in one state as more votes than a person in a another state make things "more democratic"?

How would you react to a proposal making the people in red states worth 1.2 people and the people in blue states worth 0.8 people?



...you think people in flyover country are stupid.
Boy, that sure sells ME.

You lost the election -- and it wasn because of the system. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

What I don't like is how the Democrats blame the system, but then want to change it to favor only them and essentially leave out their "stupid" fellow Americans. Maybe if they actually started talking reform for all instead of reform for themselves, they could win an election. I just hate it when they try to regard middle Americans as stupid, because the truth is a lot of middle Americans think they are Frenchified phonies. I myself think that both sides should shut up and accept each other without calling either one stupid, but that means that they should all stop the stupid antics.

 

[curious_]

How does counting a person in one state as more votes than a person in a another state make things "more democratic"?

...political participation and voting have increasing become real-time occupancies that require some requisite skills drawn from one's sustained political engagement, political awareness, broad vision and the capability to isolate important, lasting issues from euphemism and political role playing. Since many view political participation as a transient yet full-time occupancy requiring relevant background and vision on voters' part, it is only in this sense that I insist that people with detached professions such as farmers in the south and elsewhere will be far more susceptible to political manipulation with the result of them either not caring enough or becoming complacent with any electoral outcome.

You have to realize that political tastes are principally created and perpetuated by the secular, but qualified minority rather than by a simple plurality and this has nothing to do with being undemocratic. The rest, they have a limited political experience or at best they don't care enough to streamline their political system, to push for a radical change and they end up with having something second tier and to be honest they are complacent with whatever they have. They won this time but they were not conscious winners.

How about you hop into a time machine, go back to 1787 and take your argument up with the founding fathers who put the elctoral college in the Constitution for a reason. We live in a republic my friend. Always have.

You should assess the system on the basis of how reasonable results it produces. The outcome, the product of the system is of major importance! The system per se, or the respect for the system per se is inferior to the principal outcome for which the system has been designed. What many of them saw was a completely wrong outcome--that was easy to discern; the rest, the large part of it who thought otherwise, simply didn't care or remained very detached.

More intellectual? Did you know Bush got better grades at Yale than Kerry did?

I am sure Kerry would get a lot more challenging classes and even then his GPA would be higher. Georgie Boy was always a slacker, no Q about that.

How would you react to a proposal making the people in red states worth 1.2 people and the people in blue states worth 0.8 people?

I am in favor of giving them more control over their domestic state-level policies--the issues that they care about most. So 1.2 is fine there. If you say, how about giving them 1.2 in the context of deciding on how Georgie Boy performs among G-8 leaders, give 'em 0.8. See, it's all about ISSUES.

...you think people in flyover country are stupid.

This is the usual reaction that I often get. My answer is: NO NO NO....

They are excellent citizens and superbly smart, but in their own ways. It's that they don't care all that much how GWbush performs among G-8 leaders, his global policy, they think he is strong and charismatic. If they think that they are experts on international politics as well, I'd disagree with that. This is the sphere where they are least qualified. But they are still terrific parents, grandparents, business owners and managers or local elected officials or their consultants. But they don't care what kind of an image Bush projects across the globe, his stance as a global political manger and peace broker. See the difference?

plz read above!

What I don't like is how the Democrats blame the system, but then want to change it to favor only them

Not really them. The whole country, I believe.

I just hate it when they try to regard middle Americans as stupid

Plz don't start it over. No one says this. No one. It's just gotta be changed and it will be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Plz don't start it over. No one says this. No one. It's just gotta be changed and it will be.

Its 'gotta be changed' if your objective is for liberal democrats to re-gain power -- it doesnt have anything to do with democracy.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Plz don't start it over. No one says this. No one. It's just gotta be changed and it will be.

How about instead of trying to change the system, the democrats try to figure out what they're doing wrong and re-think their strategies?

 

[Caine]

Hey Hey Hey!!!!

Don't drop all yer democrats in one basket.

I think the election system is fine.

 

[curious_]

How about instead of trying to change the system, the democrats try to figure out what they're doing wrong and re-think their strategies?

Well, the democrats have argued that they have to reach out to those in the center and the south...But the fact remains that

...the middle of the US lands is vast and even though it is less densely populated Wyoming, Idaho, rural Montana...voters have a way of dictating their views to NY, MD, MA...voters and the thing is WY, ID, MT are invariably conservative and they will stay that way forever...because a rural voter will always more closely identify themselves with a person like GWBush than with a Kerry-type individual. Not that they have some innate adversity to a more rigorous, intellectual candidate but the thing is a Georgie-boy type is more close to their hearts, its like--perhaps he is a bastard but he is our own bastard...to them he is more down-to-earth, far more easily embraceable and to them personality is above politics..first he is their bastard, then a politician. And because global policies don't get a chance to be decided by a secular but qualified minority (instead of unqualified plurality), under the current desing of the system the rurals will get an edge in superimposing their strictly local policies over America's intenrational standing and the difference between the two gets blurred as a result. Some profit very nicely from this.

and this will be very hard to change without changing the rules..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, the democrats have argued that they have to reach out to those in the center and the south...But the fact remains that....
and this will be very hard to change without changing the rules..

But the fact remains that those in the center and the South don't buy it.

That's not a function of the system, thats a function of a failed message.

But then, its not a surprise that you blame the sytem and not the message -- after all, hoe can the message be wrong? Right?

You lost. Get over it.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Well, the democrats have argued that they have to reach out to those in the center and the south...But the fact remains that and this will be very hard to change without changing the rules..

I can think of a perfect way to change the "rules" for the democrats.

Stop nominating and left wing nuts and move the party toward the center.

Not that I want the rules changed.

As long as they keep churning out guys like John Kerry and losing, I'll be singin.

 

[mike49]

Curious,

What did you mean by "man made rules"?

It sounds very Islamic to me.

 

[Caine]

Curious,

What did you mean by "man made rules"?

It sounds very Islamic to me.

Islamic?
As opposed to Christian? or Jewish?

What the hell does Islamic have to do with the voting system?

 

[mike49]

Islamic?
As opposed to Christian? or Jewish?

What the hell does Islamic have to do with the voting system?

Yes, as opposed to Christian and Jewish.

It has nothing to do with the voting system which is why I asked the question. At least to me it has nothing to do with voting, but apparently it has some meaning to "Curious".

 

[Caine]

Yes, as opposed to Christian and Jewish.

It has nothing to do with the voting system which is why I asked the question. At least to me it has nothing to do with voting, but apparently it has some meaning to "Curious".

So.... Why did you say Islamic?

Curious didn't say anything about Islam, that I saw, in the post that I *Think* you are refering to.

So, what the deal with calling it Islamic?

 

[curious_]

But the fact remains that those in the center and the South don't buy it.

I know, the rurals tend to be stubborn and ambivalent both at the same time.

hoe can the message be wrong? Right?

That's classic. That everyone knows.

As long as they keep churning out guys like John Kerry and losing, I'll be singin.

What do you mean 'guys like John Kerry'? Not enough purple hearts...?

Curious,

What did you mean by "man made rules"?

It sounds very Islamic to me.

LOL What age group are you in mike at your college? I am guessing: Sophomore?

So, what the deal with calling it Islamic?

Hey, don't be so strict with Mike...you know it's a Bushes world nowadays, remeber dick chaney was threatening...it's a hot issue now *wink*