Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think the best way to reform the electoral college is to keep all the electoral votes each state gets and apportion them by the percentage of the vote each candidate got in that state.

Example:

Massamainevada 12 EVs

Bob 53% Joe 45% Bubba 8%

Bob = 6.36 Joe = 5.4 Bubba = 0.96

Round to the nearest whole:
Bob 6 EVs
Joe 5 EVs
Bubba 1 EV

There are many good reasons for this.
1. It maintains the best characteristic of the electoral college over the popular vote, namely, avoiding a nationwide recount.
2. Less problems caused by close counts at the state level. In a very close race, the amount of electoral votes affected by recounts, etc. would be far less than under the winner take all system, in fact, no more than 1. One electoral vote that is too close to call until after a recount is less likely to affect the national outcome than 25 votes that can go either way depending on just a few votes, as was the case in 2000.
3. The electoral vote would more closely resemble the make up of the state than the current system.
4. It avoids the potential for gerrymandering to affect results as it would if the Nebraska system was adopted.
5. It would encourage active participation by the candidates in all 50 states, as electoral votes are up for play even in the "safe" states.
6. It would make it easier for third parties to pick up electoral votes.
7. Unlike abolishing the electoral college, it would not require a constitutional amendment.

At 11/6/08 07:13 PM, TheSilverGuitar wrote:

At 11/5/08 08:55 PM, n64kid wrote: I agree with most of his issues. He does advocate for the fair tax, which I disagree on, but suggests that we do away with the death tax and capital gains tax, which is good morally and for all businesses/investors.

His site is down right now, so what's his opinion on same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.?

http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/Ba rr.html

BTW, libertarianism isn't in the political spectrum, namely because the political spectrum is a oversimplification of political views. At the very least, political views should be placed on a Cartesian plane. The traditinonal red-blue spectrum would lie on the x axis, then the y axis would be various levels of government control, ranging from authoritarian to libertarian.

Barr's views are similar to Ron Paul's, though Barr's shift slightly more to the conservative on social issues.

At 11/6/08 07:10 PM, Phratt wrote: Are you an idiot?

The electoral college gives values to states.

Without it, Places like Montana with a population of 200,000 would be represented as equally as california with a population of what? nine million?

I don't think you have the ground to be calling someone else an idiot.

1. Montana's population is nearly 1,000,000
2. California's population is over 36,000,000
3. Without the electoral college, the values would be that state's popular vote--California would be worth 36 times Montana, because it has 36 times the voters.

With the partisan nature of the country right now, I would argue that we need the electoral vote more than ever.

I'm sure you all remember 2000, when Florida was very close, and thus resulted in a messy recount/attempt at recount.

Now imagine a close presidential election, where the popular vote was within 10,000 votes. What we saw happen in Florida in 2000 would happen nationwide. You would have court battles in every single state over what ballots to admit and what not to admit, which would be further confused by the inconsistent voting standards across each state. It would really put a strain on our democracy and really deepen the split between red and blue states.

I'd resign. I'm not qualified enough to hold the Presidency.

At 11/4/08 08:58 AM, Jezuz wrote:

At 11/4/08 03:47 AM, dorak wrote:

Sorry everything isn't full of fairies and unicorns. Do you need more magic dust to get back to that little world in your head where everyone loves one another?

Didn't I just say I wish they would both go die? I don't care if they dislike each other, just go ahead into an alley somewhere in downtown Atlanta and fight with broken beer bottles to the death, just stay off my entertainment rectangle, you cunts.

Do us a favor. Keep your apathy intact. Don't pay attention to politics, and stay away from the polls in the future. By doing so, intelligent voters, those of us that actually learn about the issues and research the candidates, can have our voices heard louder and clearer than they would with chaff like you clogging up the rolls.

---

Close to half the electorate here in Georgia voted in advance. I just got back from the polling place after waiting an hour and 15 minutes to cast my ballot. Fortunately, most of the wait was outside, on a very beautiful cloudless southern autumn day.

I was disappointed that the Whig Party never got a candidate on the ballot this year. It's been over a century and a half. C'mon Whigs, get to it, this is no way to win an election!

I wonder how far that $1,000,000 would go to funding no-kill animal shelters?

Here's my personal prediction.

It's easy to predict who will win the election, as it's pretty much a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
It's not easy, however, to predict what states each candidate will win.

Save the map, and fill in the states with the appropriate colors (Red=Rep. Blue=Dem Yellow=Other).

Don't forget to fill in DC!

At 10/28/08 01:47 PM, Elfer wrote: Keep in mind that results where under 12.5% of people got all three correct can't be statistically differentiated and ranked the way they are there.

True.

But still, The Weather Channel?

At 10/28/08 12:49 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I would agree with you if he were firing a handgun or possibly even a manual rifle, under certain circumstances, but a fully automatic machine gun?

I wouldn't trust most adults to use a gun like that, never mind my eight year old son.

"Bizilj told the Boston Globe he was about 10 feet behind his son and reaching for his camera when the weapon fired. He said his family avoided the larger weapons, but he let his son try the Uzi because it's a small weapon with little recoil."

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree. However, I still do think this is just an unfortunate accident, rather than any real negligence involved, at least with the information given.

At 10/28/08 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/28/08 12:53 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

And why do you think it has the highest ratings?

What do you want me to add?

Most viewers?

-Ranked "most trustworthy"

By whom?

-Ranked "most balanced"

By whom?

By Reuters.

The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in
declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News
(10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News
(6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).

In 2003, CNN led Fox News on "trust most for accurate reporting" 23.8% to
14.6%.

I know why they are ranked accordingly as you said above, it's a layering affect.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep.

FOX News tells it's viewers it's balanced, therefore of course it's going to be voted "most balanced" and "most trustworthy." I could also say the same for all news stations, but we're discussing FOX in particular here.

I'm going by statistics...

Sorry, but those aren't relevant statistics.

If you want to show that Fox News or any news outlet is fair/unfair, you should cite statistics such as the ratio of time spent covering pro-Republican stories vs. pro-Democratic stories, the number of Democratic commentators and interviewees vs. the number of Republican ones, et. al.

Saying that Fox News is unbiased because its viewers say it is doesn't make it reality, it just makes it wikiality.

At 10/27/08 04:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote: I thought of another counter-argument;

If we are going to attack people for killing "potential life", shouldn't people who accidentally kill women in car accidents be charged even more heavily because of the potential life that could have been there? That woman could have had babies, so the potential was there.

Getting a woman pregnant should also be prosecuted in a similar matter. I mean, that's 9 months of potential lives being snuffed out just for one baby? That's wrong!

At 10/28/08 11:44 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Should children be able to use weapons even in the presence of adults?

Yes.

Without knowing any further details, this event is just an accident. Obviously, it's easy to sit here and say that he shouldn't be using a weapon, but we have the benefit of hindsight and distance from this incident.

At 10/28/08 11:28 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Your thoughts?

Who do we have to assign blame to in order bring the boy back?

The Pew Research Center released a study a couple weeks ago where they asked people who regularly watch various news related channels/shows three questions:

1. The current majority party in Congress
2. The current Secretary of State
3. The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

[Source]

Question #1: (Average 53% correct)
Top 10
1. Hannity & Colmes (84%)
2. Rush Limbaugh (83%)
3. Lou Dobbs Tonight (79%)
4. Hardball (76%)
5. Political magazines (74%)
6 (tie). NPR, Colbert Report (73%)
8 (tie). New Yorker/Atlantic, Business magazines (71%)
10. O'Reilly Factor

Bottom 10
1. Religious radio (39%)
2. Access Hollywood (43%)
3. National Enquirer (44%)
4. Personality magazines (45%)
5. CBS News w/Katie Couric (46%)
6. The Weather Channel (48%)
7 (tie). CNBC, Letterman/Leno (51%)
9. Morning news shows (53%)
10 (tie). Local TV news, NBC News w/Brian Williams (55%)

Question #2 (Average 42% correct)
Top 10
1. Hannity & Colmes (73%)
2. NPR (72%)
3 (tie). New Yorker/Atlantic, Rush Limbaugh (71%)
5. Hardball (66%)
6. Colbert Report (65%)
7. Business magazines (64%)
8. Lou Dobbs Tonight (61%)
9. O'Reilly Factor (60%)
10 (tie). Sunday AM Talk TV, BBC, C-SPAN (59%)

Bottom 10
1. National Enquirer (32%)
2. The Weather Channel (34%)
3 (tie). CBS News w/Katie Couric, Access Hollywood (37%)
5. Personality magazines (40%)
6. Network news (41%)
7. Religious radio (42%)
8. Morning news shows (43%)
9 (tie). Local TV news, TV news magazines

Question #3 (Average 28% correct)
Top 10
1. New Yorker/Atlantic (59%)
2. NPR (57%)
3. Political magazines (54%)
4. Hardball (53%)
5 (tie). Hannity & Colmes, Colbert Report (49%)
7. NewsHour (47%)
8. Business magazines (46%)
9. BBC (44%)
10. Sunday AM Talk TV (43%)

Bottom 10
1. The Weather Channel (20%)
2 (tie). CBS News w/Katie Couric, Access Hollywood, Religious radio (21%)
4. National Enquirer (22%)
5. Personality magazines (25%)
6. Morning news shows (27%)
7 (tie). TV News magazines, Local TV news, CNBC (28%)
10. CNN (29%)

Answering all three questions correctly (Average 18%)
Top 10
1. New Yorker/Atlantic (48%)
2. NPR (44%)
3. Hardball (43%)
4. Hannity & Colmes (42%)
5. Political magazines (39%)
6 (tie). Business magazines, Rush Limbaugh (36%)
8 (tie). BBC, Colbert Report (34%)

Bottom 10
1. National Enquirer (9%)
2 (tie). CBS News w/Katie Couric, Access Hollywood (10%)
4. The Weather Channel (11%)
5. Religious radio (12%)
6. Personality magazines (13%)
7 (tie). Morning news shows, TV News magazines (16%)
9 (tie). Network news, Local TV News, CNBC (17%)

So, CBS News with Katie Couric viewers, if you want full coverage of today's politics, I suggest you watch The Weather Channel. Or if you want really hard hitting commentary on the day's politicos, watch ESPN (21 % of ESPN respondents answered all three questions correctly, more than any of the aforementioned bottom 10, as well as Fox News, CNN, ABC News w/Charlie Gibson, Larry King Live, and Letterman/Leno).

Your thoughts and opinions? Be sure to check the source link for the entire results.

Barr.

*waits for ACORN to create a bunch of alt accounts to cast votes for Obama*

I agree. I think the government should make it mandatory that we exercise our freedoms.

I would contend that Sarah Palin is actually more experienced than either Obama and Biden, and also more expierienced than her running mate.
None of the other three on the two tickets have any executive experience. None have been mayor, county commissioner, or governor.

A long legislative career does not make one necessarily suited to be president. Someone with loads of experience creating, drafting, and passing legislation may lack the key skills to be president.

Suppose you have a CEO of a business who is retiring. Do you replace him with your head accountant, or hire a CEO from another, slightly smaller company? It's usually the latter. It's also why only 1 sitting senator (Kennedy) has been elected president in the past half century.

With that said, I think the question of "experience" is overrated. The president is surrounded by so many advisers with expertise on any given subject. Because of this, what should be vastly more important to voters is the candidate's ideology, as the president-elect will seek out experts of like ideology, much like the outgoing administration wrapped itself in a layer of neo-conservatives.

As to the concept that a vice president is supposed to be a adviser and consultant to the president, it's only in the W. Bush and Clinton administrations do you find such empowered vice presidents. Did Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Walter Mondale, and H.W. Bush have the kind of elevated status that Gore and Cheney have had?

At 3/28/08 06:18 PM, Guardian-Angel wrote: I'm just gonna say right off that I know next to nothing about politics. However, I do know about people acting like assholes.

So basically, it's a little bit more than half a year to election day, right? Republicans already got their man, McCain. However, what I hear is that Democrats have Obama and Clinton still going strong, and neither have a decent lead over the other. This is bad, I think.

See, the thing is, people get worked over little things and like to act in spite. With Democrats having 2 candidates, this logically means one of them has to go. However, both of them have a good number of supporters. What're are Clinton fanatics gonna do when Clinton happens to get kicked off? What's gonna happen of Obama and his "Change" plan goes to the toilets? Their supporters are gonna get pissed. Humans tend to act out of spite when they're pissed. I don't know this for sure, but I believe many supporters of the losing Democrat candidate are gonna vote for McCain, just 'cause their little Clinton or Obama didn't get through.

I disagree. I think that regardless of whoever is the Democratic nominee, the democrats will rally around that person. I think there are simply too many people fed up with the current administration to cross over from the Democratic to the Republican ticket--Even if they have to clothespin vote for the Democratic candidate, they'll do so over going over to the Republican side.

That said, however, it seems unlikely that with the bickering and how hard fought this primary has been, that a Obama-Clinton or vice versa ticket will emerge, and frankly, I think that might be a good thing. While both candidates are Presidential material, I think that they would be better suited with perhaps another former candidate, perhaps Bill Richardson or John Edwards, taking the VP spot on the ticket.

This place has finally worn out to me, it's no longer as fun as it once was. Though I might stop in every now and then when something big happens, I think I'm done with NG.

Much <3 to all my politics regs I've had so much fun and enjoyment debating the past 3 1/2 years. :)

At 9/9/07 06:37 AM, Tylea002 wrote:

At 9/9/07 06:13 AM, SlayThePirate wrote: Those motherfuckers... i asked an X-box For my birthday, and this is what i get!!

Smartasses...

Sounded like they wanted to trick you! They must know what an xbox is.

Yes, and they got him one. It says right on the label, there, "X BOX."
It's his fault for not providing adequate specifications.

I have to give your parents props. That's pretty funny.

At 9/2/07 03:06 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote: So, reckon he's just trying to look tough infront of his people?

What does he care about the Falkland Islands for?

Somebody's compensating for the inadequacies in his weapons package in his pants, it would appear.

Now you can pretend you're Tom Delay...

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/

This is a fun little game. I recommend you try it out, and learn about gerrymandering and redistricting.

At 9/2/07 03:17 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 9/2/07 03:10 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Thats why they do it right before they leave office.

like who?

Like, every President ever...

At 9/1/07 04:14 AM, Insanatic wrote: Unfortunatly for the movie, Thank You For Smoking, I have found difficulty finding the article that had all the sources. I'm not saying they're healthy I'm just saying don't keep this a salem witch trial. When I smoke a cigarette don't treat me as a lepper. I'm not trying to harm you. Yeah they can harm health. Just as much as donuts harm healh. But please don't think of this a witch trial.

Who is thinking of it as a witch trial? Who could possibly be persecuting smokers to such an extent?

At 9/1/07 03:01 AM, Insanatic wrote: I am a smoker. I enjoy every cigarette I have. I know this is a constant arguement. I know its talked a lot about. But I want to express the idea. Smokers are not malicious destroyers. I don't smoke a cigarette in the hopes to destroy others' lungs. I enjoy it.

I don't think people go around of accusing smokers of "smoking with the purpose of harming others."

So I want to know from the people of Newgrounds. Why personally and Realisticaly do you hate smoking?

After spending lots of time my first five years in the hospital beside my mother at my father's hospital bed, watching him die a slow and agonizing death from lung cancer and emphysema, then seeing him being lowered into his grave at the cemetery, you tend to be against the things that caused that situation.

And if you do hate smoking do you hate obesity?

One's obesity doesn't harm the health of others.

Obesuty is a more health harming danger. So why smoking. Why tax us so much that in New Jersey I pay 7.00$ per pack. 20 cigarettes. Which last me maybe a day and a half if I'm lucky. Am I so evil, Am I such a destructor?

No, but it's a good way to pay for the health expenses smokers like yourself put on the state later on down the road when you're lying in a hospital bed, wheezing through your oxygen mask.

Do I deserve to pay more on cigarettes than I do on food?

Yes. You can't live without food, you can live without cigarettes.

Did you know it could prevent proestate cancer, colon cancer, osteoperosis, and even a number of lung disease, and thats not all.

Do you have any credible link or source to back this claim up?

At 8/31/07 11:24 AM, Proteas wrote: My area is more your typical rural American farmland, really. This is one of my backyard after a storm some time earlier this year....

Tennessee has some beautiful country, though I've always liked the Cumberland Plateau region a little better for some reason.

if someone knows how to photshop the powerline out of this photo, please contact me.

I could do it for you.

At 8/25/07 07:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/25/07 08:58 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

What? Where do you get your information?

The Colbert interview of him wanting to abolish the U.N and I.R.S.

You've never heard of the FairTax, have you?