• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No, it was NOT a mixed message

No such thing. They have to be programmed by people, whom are partisan by nature.

It shouldn't be hard to design something fairly nonpartisan (i.e. where the House popular vote approximately mirrors the number of seats each party gets):

- Districts should be contiguous and as square-shaped as possible.
- No consideration should be given for the demographic composition of the area, nor for the residences of specific people.
- A computer draws up 9 different maps. Each party gets to eliminate the 4 that they dislike the most. Whatever is left is the new district map.
 
This is exactly why we should have a nonpartisan computer program draw up the districts every ten years.

Actually California used lay nonpartisan panels: a procedure that conservative Republicans got passed via the initiative process in the hope that it would save them from extinction. The opposite occurred. The newly drawn nonpartisan districts almost all went democratic, and California now has a supermajority of Democrats in the assembly and the senate. A total backfire by the conservatives who blamed gerrymandering on their decline. Ironically, it was only gerrymandering that kept the GOP alive.
 
It shouldn't be hard to design something fairly nonpartisan (i.e. where the House popular vote approximately mirrors the number of seats each party gets):

- Districts should be contiguous and as square-shaped as possible.
- No consideration should be given for the demographic composition of the area, nor for the residences of specific people.
- A computer draws up 9 different maps. Each party gets to eliminate the 4 that they dislike the most. Whatever is left is the new district map.

You don't need a computer. Just lay nonpartisan panels who must follow nonpartisan guidelines -- "community of interest" standard is how they did it in California. It worked well. Conservatives and some minorities were upset, but it was subject to judicial review.
 
Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.

You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?

NEXT!

A landslide is winning 49 out of 50 States.

All Obama did was execute a well-played campaign.
 
There's no more such a thing as a "popular vote" for the House as there is for the President. :lamo

It is HILARIOUS that you'd argue otherwise, and that you'd argue "popular vote" to claim he has a mandate AT ALL when his vote was a hair over 50%.

Whining about "gerrymandering" is no different from whining that all 55 of CA's electoral votes go to Obama.

But it's amazing how one can be a sore winner and a sore loser at the same time.

Obviously there is a popular vote for both, simply consisting of the vote total. Are you being a reality denier here, or what?

Otherwise, folks seem to be confusing a mandate with carte blanche. Not the same thing. Mandate simply means, "an authorization to act given to a representative." As a rule the winner of the election has a mandate to carry out his or her platform. It simply means that the winning side's platform should be given a little more deference than the losing side's platform in recognition of the people's choice. As I said, some argued that the presidential mandate was canceled out by the House mandate, but that argument doesn't hold much water.
 
Obviously there is a popular vote for both, simply consisting of the vote total. Are you being a reality denier here, or what?

And they are equally meaningful for both types of elections, i.e., they're NOT what directly determines the outcome. Are YOU "denying" that? There are 435 separate elections for the House, not one big one. THAT is the "reality" that you're seeking to "deny" here.

Otherwise, folks seem to be confusing a mandate with carte blanche. Not the same thing. Mandate simply means, "an authorization to act given to a representative." As a rule the winner of the election has a mandate to carry out his or her platform. It simply means that the winning side's platform should be given a little more deference than the losing side's platform in recognition of the people's choice.

That's a predictably self-serving definition of "mandate," and quite counter to how it's normally understood, which I don't have to tell you involves a healthy, clear majority of the vote, not some squeaker margin.

(Or maybe I do, and you've just been running with a faulty conception of "mandate" all along? Which is it?)


As I said, some argued that the presidential mandate was canceled out by the House mandate, but that argument doesn't hold much water.

Even by your own definition above, the Republican majority being re-elected gives them the same legislative mandate that Obama's re-election gives him an executive mandate. Only hackery says one but not the other.
 
Spinny, spin, spin spin Adam. I don't think thre is a message at all. We had two pathetic choices and one of them had to win.
 
Even by your own definition above, the Republican majority being re-elected gives them the same legislative mandate that Obama's re-election gives him an executive mandate. Only hackery says one but not the other.

I think they are different in that EVERYONE can vote for the president, while only the state can vote for their respective house member. Even though congress had an extremely low approval rating, people don't usually think "their" state member is the problem.

I will say though, I don't think Obama's re-election is an affirmation of Obama's policies like some are saying.
 
And they are equally meaningful for both types of elections, i.e., they're NOT what directly determines the outcome. Are YOU "denying" that? There are 435 separate elections for the House, not one big one. THAT is the "reality" that you're seeking to "deny" here.

And of course I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, it is instructive.

That's a predictably self-serving definition of "mandate," and quite counter to how it's normally understood, which I don't have to tell you involves a healthy, clear majority of the vote, not some squeaker margin.

Better drop a note to Merriam-Webster, because it's their definition. Mandate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Even by your own definition above, the Republican majority being re-elected gives them the same legislative mandate that Obama's re-election gives him an executive mandate. Only hackery says one but not the other.

Except that's exactly my point. More people voted for the Democrat for president and more people voted for the Democrats in the House. IMO the only time the winner of an election really has no mandate is when he loses the popular vote.
 
I think they are different in that EVERYONE can vote for the president

You don't vote for the President. You vote for your state's slate of Electors. 51 separate elections.
 
You don't vote for the President. You vote for your state's slate of Electors. 51 separate elections.

Yes, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't get the president elected. Hence the popular vote.
 
You don't vote for the President. You vote for your state's slate of Electors. 51 separate elections.

That's funny, because I could have sworn that I filled in the box next to Barack Obama -- not Sam Sausagehead the delegate.
 
And of course I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, it is instructive.

As is the hairs-breadth margin of the presidential "popular vote."

Better drop a note to Merriam-Webster, because it's their definition. Mandate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please. This refers only to giving someone authority to hold the office, not to enact policy. Hmmm. Maybe you actually DON'T know what's commonly meant by an electoral "mandate." I doubt that very much, though.


Except that's exactly my point. More people voted for the Democrat for president and more people voted for the Democrats in the House. IMO the only time the winner of an election really has no mandate is when he loses the popular vote.

No; Cogress isn't singular. People voted their representatives back into office. By your definition, each representative has a separate mandate.
 
That's funny, because I could have sworn that I filled in the box next to Barack Obama -- not Sam Sausagehead the delegate.

Oh, what, you're claiming ignorance of the process now? I shouldn't be surprised.
 
LOL. My ubber right wing Congressman is not going to throw up his hands and say,"Yep, let's give Obama what he wants." He won his race with a far bigger margin than Obama so nice try in trying to create a narrative where none exists. Red is red.
 
Oh, what, you're claiming ignorance of the process now? I shouldn't be surprised.

The only ignorant thing is you claiming that people don't vote for the president. They do.
 
Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.

You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?

NEXT!

Plus 3 million more in the popular vote.
 
Yes, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't get the president elected. Hence the popular vote.

No. You vote for a slate of electors. Different electors are chosen based on the outcome.
 
The only ignorant thing is you claiming that people don't vote for the president. They do.

No. They don't. It's what the ballot says, but it's not what they're doing. They're deciding on which slate of electors gets to vote for the President.

This is really basic stuff, Adam, which you have no excuse not knowing. Which I very much doubt is the case, and you're just being mendacious.
 
No. You vote for a slate of electors. Different electors are chosen based on the outcome.

So when you voted there wasn't a selection for president and vice president? Like I said YES, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't elect them.
 
As is the hairs-breadth margin of the presidential "popular vote."

Three million isn't exactly a hairs breadth, now is it?

Please. This refers only to giving someone authority to hold the office, not to enact policy. Hmmm. Maybe you actually DON'T know what's commonly meant by an electoral "mandate." I doubt that very much, though.

From whence do you think the popular useage derives? A mandate simply means that the winner of the election is given some deference ... or at least it used to mean that until about four years ago. How much deference is given is generally a factor of the size of the victory. Thus Obama's middling victory gives him a modest mandate, but it is a mandate nonetheless. By tradition, if the two sides are deadlocked the losing party should give the winning party the benefit of the doubt in the early going. That is generally how it's always worked ... at least until about four years ago.


No; Cogress isn't singular. People voted their representatives back into office. By your definition, each representative has a separate mandate.

I wasn't the one arguing that Obama's mandate is cancelled out by a generalized House mandate. I was responding to that argument.
 
So when you voted there wasn't a selection for president and vice president? Like I said YES, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't elect them.

You are electing the people who elect the President. Each state does this separately, thus, 51 separate elections.
 
You are electing the people who elect the President. Each state does this separately, thus, 51 separate elections.

It's like talking in circles with you. The president and vice president are on the ballot, you vote for them. Your vote doesn't get the president/vice president elected though.
 
This is the congressional equivalent of a president winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote.

Which, since AMERICA elects Presidents based on Electoral Votes, not popular vote, would be a situation where America voted for a Republican President.

Similarly, since AMERICA elects the house control and members through individual districts, not through total popular vote, we have a situation where America voted for a Republican House.

But nice attempts to rewrite reality into something it's not. Just because the Liberal Brietbart tells you that its "not true" doesn't actually mean their opinion is factual.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom