Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[Kajhera]

Who cares about the presidency, they don't legislate. It's Congress we need to toss more sensible people into.
(I'm content with our current executive, myself. I'll live with these dudes if they get in one way or another, but I don't really like any of em, or feel their logic is a useful way to proceed.)

[skydragonknight]

The President has a couple very important powers: the Veto power, the ability to appoint a Supreme Court judge as well as deciding who we're currently attempting to blow up.

[bhu]

If Congress unites it can still interfere with those.

Not looking forward to the political shitstorm if Obama gets to appoint another justice.  It'll pretty much derail everything in government.

[veekie]

A two party system really kinda sucks doesn't it? At least the dozen-party systems tend to deadlock rather than try to push terrible things through.

[X-Codes]

A two party system really kinda sucks doesn't it? At least the dozen-party systems tend to deadlock rather than try to push terrible things through.

Because the dozen-party systems can't rely on waiting for the other team to fuck up just as bad as they did to get control back.  They HAVE to be constructive if they want power.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I'm actually okay with you owning a tank X-codes.

  ... I thought X-codes already owned a tank.

[X-Codes]

Just a sniper rifle (and my moogle won't give it back).

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Looks like Florida is gonna go Romney / Gingrich / Santorum / Paul.
I wonder how the delegates get split up ?! Because it matters this time.

Just a sniper rifle (and my moogle won't give it back).

Add in one of those google driverless cars,
and you've got a "tank" for silicon valley.

[darqueseid]

I thought FLA is all or nothing?  Romney gets it all I think.

[Hallack]

Yes, Florida is winner take all. 

[X-Codes]

Yes, Florida is winner take all.

I think I heard that your guy wasn't in Florida, and that would explain why.

Any ideas on what Paul is going to do with his delegates?

In other news, it looks like all the money Romney and Gingrich are flooding the elections with is drowning out Santorum, which you can notice because Santorum doesn't seem to even be able to get the fundies to vote for him, some of them are apparently going to Gingrich (for some crazy-ass reason...)

[RobbyPants]

Santorum doesn't seem to even be able to get the fundies to vote for him, some of them are apparently going to Gingrich (for some crazy-ass reason...)

The moon. It's all about colonizing the moon.

[X-Codes]

 

[Hallack]

Yes, Florida is winner take all.

I think I heard that your guy wasn't in Florida, and that would explain why.

Any ideas on what Paul is going to do with his delegates?

In other news, it looks like all the money Romney and Gingrich are flooding the elections with is drowning out Santorum, which you can notice because Santorum doesn't seem to even be able to get the fundies to vote for him, some of them are apparently going to Gingrich (for some crazy-ass reason...)

Yes, Florida would have been a waist of money without all the cooperate special interest money pouring in like for the Rom/Ging campaigns get so fiscal conservative Paul decided to play to his strengths and go for delegates in caucus states where his grassroots will perform much better than the media led primary votes (particularly regarding Winner Take All states). 

What to actually do with those delegates?  I can honestly say that the roots plan to win or fight for a win.  Admittedly the deck is stacked and the odds are against us.  But in the crazy scenario where a brokered convention might occur things change.  If things go brokered Ron has his delegates and then he has those previously bound delegates that were actually Paul supporters.  Yes, it is ALL about the delegates. 

Regarding evangelicals and tea partiers and Gingrich... yeah, it is some kind of bizzaro world scenario.  Well, I actually think it shows  how weak the principled conviction  is within so many of those groups on those issues. 

Cheers

[RobbyPants]

Regarding evangelicals and tea partiers and Gingrich... yeah, it is some kind of bizzaro world scenario.  Well, I actually think it shows  how weak the principled conviction  is within so many of those groups on those issues. 

In all fairness, I think it's bound to happen when you try to take a lot of complex issues and simplify them into a handful of yes/no answers. It's even worse when you try to narrow it down to one (Republican vs Democrat).

Come election day, you're going to be asked how you feel about abortion, gay marriage, the budget, the economy, the war, and a whole slew of other things, and your only two viable answers are "Republican" or  "Democrat" even if you only agree on some of the issues.

[X-Codes]

Hence why so many people, except the ones in power of course, want to get rid of the two-party system.

[RobbyPants]

Hence why so many people, except the ones in power of course, want to get rid of the two-party system.

Aside from the status quo, why are we stuck with it? I've heard there are benefits to it, but I don't know what they are.

[Tiltowait]

Hence why so many people, except the ones in power of course, want to get rid of the two-party system.

Aside from the status quo, why are we stuck with it? I've heard there are benefits to it, but I don't know what they are.

Humans have extreme difficulty sorting out more than 2 or 3 distinct choices in any given category. Even if there were more, only a handful would ultimately matter.

[X-Codes]

Hence why so many people, except the ones in power of course, want to get rid of the two-party system.

Aside from the status quo, why are we stuck with it? I've heard there are benefits to it, but I don't know what they are.

Humans have extreme difficulty sorting out more than 2 or 3 distinct choices in any given category. Even if there were more, only a handful would ultimately matter.

This is bullshit.  Stupid people have difficulty sorting out anything at all, while ones that are capable of even a modicum of logical reasoning are can deductively decide on which candidate they want to vote for.

There are no benefits at all to a 2-party system, because "benefit" is the entirely wrong word to use.  There may or may not be an advantage to a 2-party system relative to some other system, but the only such advantage is a strategic one for the two parties.  Because of their favored status, they don't have to be constructive at all.  If they fall out of favor, then they just wait for the other party to fuck up and, suddenly, they're back on America's good side.

A significantly better system would be to mandate run-off elections for any election not decided by a clear majority (I'd say 51%, not 50% + 1 and definitely not the crap we've got going on now where someone can win with <40% of the vote).  You may wind up with two parties in power the majority of the time, but if they're both fucking up then it's entirely possible that they'd both be booted in favor of someone else, and they'll both be out of power for a long time.

[Tiltowait]

Most people are stupid, so while it is bullshit it isn't unbelievable at all.

Ask someone if they want Coke or Pepsi, they'll answer with their favorite drink quickly.

Ask someone if they want Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew and you'll still get a quick answer.

Ask someone what kind of soda do they want and it will likely take a bit to decide.

Political decisions are more meaningful than drinking ones, so the decision process takes longer.

If you were right, Independents would get more votes. It's that simple.

I'm not saying the system is good. I am saying that is why it is the way that it is.