Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heron TSG]

When you have a flood of attack ads every two years (for the House), four years (President), and six years (Senate), things get a little heated. 2012 is one of those years where the stars align and there will be election campaigns for all three. My Washington Voter's Pamphlet will be more than 100 pages, I am sure. (What with all the stuff on the ballot for Washington this year along with all the descriptors of every candidate and issue.)

[Bauglir]

Actually, doesn't that happen every 4 years, what with 1/3 of Senators being elected every 2 years in a staggered arrangement that spreads them out across the whole thing? Minor nitpick, but yeah. Gonna be a big pamphlet, more accurately described as a small book.

[GreatJustice]

-snip-

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

He's not on the ballot in Tennessee?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/bachmann-santorum-have-no-delegates-on-tennessee-primary-ballot/

So strictly speaking he is, but he has no delegates

Nice we don't have him or Bachmann, but we have no delegates for Buddy Roemer?

Probably won't end up mattering too much in the long run, though. Tennessee has never been much of a swing state.

It's the thought that counts, and its the sort of state that Santorum would have to win were he in a position to beat Romney.

Anyhow, I know there are other states Santorum is either not on the ballot for or doesn't have enough delegates. I think he wasn't able to get on the Indiana and Arizona ballots either, but don't quote me on that. If you want, I can go check for ballot access.

But frankly, Santorum isn't a serious threat to Romney. Gingrich had a casino mogul backing him and a resounding win in the state that's said to always determine the Republican victor; Santorum had an extremely lacklustre victory in a state he practically lived in for the past year, followed by getting crushed in the next state and performing so-so in the next two. If the current Nevada/Clark County results are anything to go by, he's going to end up with 10% or less in Nevada, and the next states aren't exactly Santorum friendly (again, barring Missouri and possibly Minnesota).

[Mego]

Actually, doesn't that happen every 4 years, what with 1/3 of Senators being elected every 2 years in a staggered arrangement that spreads them out across the whole thing? Minor nitpick, but yeah. Gonna be a big pamphlet, more accurately described as a small book.

Every 4 years, House and Presidential elections line up. But, Senate elections fall mid-term half of the time, being every 6 years. It's only every 12 years that Senate and House/Presidential elections land on the same year.

House:     2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012
President: 2000,       2004,       2008,       2012
Senate:    2000,             2006,             2012

(I used Courier so that the text would line up in nice columns)

[Bauglir]

Okay, but no. They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

[Flying Dice]

Okay, but no. They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

This. This was (for obvious reasons) a good idea.

[Mego]

Okay, but no. They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

Oh wow, I somehow failed to take that into account. They are indeed staggered, so every 4 years, House, Senate, and Presidential elections occur. I apologize, my brain seems to have turned off after watching campaign ads.

[Bauglir]

my brain seems to have turned off after watching campaign ads.

That's entirely reasonable. That seems to be their intended function, after all. No worries!

[palsch]

Superbowl final scores are in.

Nevada final results aren't.

Just saying.

[Frumple]

America knows where its priorities are.

[mainiac]

Football games have clear rules to determine the winner, a process to review decisions swiftly and clear documentation of any contestable events as well as a governing body to review to results of their rules and officials.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Football games have clear rules to determine the winner, a process to review decisions swiftly and clear documentation of any contestable events as well as a governing body to review to results of their rules and officials.

If only we had a similar system implemented in our elections, with mandatory voting..

[Frumple]

First bit, maybe. I've never really been entirely sure about the mandatory voting thing. Better to teach better early on so folks will vote (and vote well informed) of their own volition. Mandatory voting doesn't mandate actually knowing what the hell you're voting on

I'm not even sure how you'd enforce that bit, actually. Some sort of pre-vote quiz with a small fine for failure?

[G-Flex]

I'm not even sure how you'd enforce that bit, actually. Some sort of pre-vote quiz with a small fine for failure?

Yes, it would definitely be best if we stripped the undereducated of their right to vote. (note: sarcasm, in case it isn't clear)

[Frumple]

Well, we already do in a lot of cases. Many felons, for one. Folks that can't afford to get to the voting booths or understand (/afford to do) distance voting. People that don't know how to find out when the voting occurs. Etc., so forth. And honestly, at least in the states, a small pre-vote quiz would probably knock a lot of well educated people out of voting eligibility, too; strictly partisan voters who know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, ferex.

Though I was only ruminating on how to enforce informed voting in a mandatory vote system. There would probably be options for those who can't read (Verbal questioning), and possibly the option to only be questioned (and allowed to vote on) specific areas for those unable to educate themselves on the full spectrum of voting issues.

I'unno, I just can't help but see a mandatory voting system degenerating to the degree that everyone that's not voting now doing the voting equivalent of "Just answer C on everything." That wouldn't help the democratic process at all. There'd either need to be some kind of check for basic understanding or very strong social pressures toward informed voting.