Comments on: Obama’s healthcare plan is on the chopping block, and liberals are to blame

By: SLCleft

SLCleft — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:59:00 +0000

Nader was right.

By: VladLenin

VladLenin — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:55:00 +0000

Here’s an idea. . . States should lose an Electoral College vote, for every basis point that they are in debt.

This would end Liberalism in America in one Election cycle.

Vlad

By: VladLenin

VladLenin — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:51:00 +0000

We need to figure out a way, to eliminate Politicians using the instrumentalities of power, to give “the people” free sh*t.

As long as one Party is giving away; Welfare, 99+ weeks Unemployment, Food Stamps, Free Education, Healthcare, Retirement, etc. we are doomed.

The American people, and particularly College-aged kids are being targeted for more free sh*t(subsidized Interest Rates), for their obedience to the Party.

Obedience leads to slavery.

Vlad

By: VladLenin

VladLenin — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:46:00 +0000

Of course, if it wasn’t for Ross Perot, we wouldn’t have had Clinton in 1992. Little known facts, particularly to Liberals, is Clinton’s dismantling of our defense and Intelligence systems, resulting in our lack of preparedness/focus prior to 9/11. For those reading above a 10th grade level, I would suggest; The Looming Tower – Lawrence Wright.

The challenge facing Obama upon entering office was the Economy and Jobs. He abandoned that fight, focusing on a massive overreach of Federal authority, by seizing control of our Healthcare system. The Court, rightly, will slap him down for his hubris.

GDP growth for the 4th quarter figures just came out. 2.2% Pathetic. Conversely, Ronald Reagan averaged 4.5+% GDP following the “malaise” period of growth under Jimmy Carter. When Obama is kicked to the curb, and Romney is President, college kids can once again, begin to think about gainful employment, following 4 years of “LEADING FROM BEHIND.

Vlad

By: Michelangelo_L

Michelangelo_L — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:21:00 +0000

I like to think there must be a midpoint between maintaining the Electoral College and avoiding a “majority rules” system. It’s not so much a concern for other states that are small, but California is so large in population that it’s difficult to justify in my mind having so many people represented by only one party.

By: David the small-L libertarian

David the small-L libertarian — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:27:00 +0000

One effective way to evaluate something is to consider what would happen if everyone did it. So if all states did as you propose the effect would be to move ever closer to “majority rules.” If that’s what you want, fine. But if you care about the Electoral College it’s not such a great idea.

By: Michelangelo_L

Michelangelo_L — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:06:00 +0000

I’m not talking about getting rid of the Electoral College. I’m talking about California not simply giving all it’s delegates to a single party. I certainly like that the Electoral College is set up in a way to give smaller states an actual say in who’ll be president. I love the symbolism that the President represents the United States, versus ‘the people’. I hope I don’t come off as not wanting federalism.

I don’t however enjoy the fact that non-Democrats in California have no say in the Presidential Elections besides the primaries. I know Nebraska and Maine have a system where electors are divided by Congressional district, so it can certainly be done. Isn’t our current system very much one of ‘majority rules’? Democrats are the majority in California, having 50-60% of the vote for the President in the state. Why do we allow the remaining portion of voters go uncounted?

It doesn’t have to be directly proportional either. Electors could be split between parties by their strength in the California State Assembly. Or we could even have the State Assembly (and/or Senate) choose the delegates themselves. I’d imagine that would result in a compromise between parties.

What in your opinion would be wrong about removing the current winner-takes-all model of selecting electors?

By: FranklinBluth

FranklinBluth — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:24:00 +0000

Again with “Blame it on Nader”. Of all the myriad of factors that could affect an election, a single factor determined the election?

Bush did a lot of bad things, but it was the spineless Democrats who didn’t stand up to him. Democrats had a chance to defeat Bush in 2004 but put up such a weak campaign, no wonder they lost.Would things have been different under President Gore? Somewhat, sure. However, as President Obama has shown, Democrats aren’t doing things a whole lot differently.

By: David the small-L libertarian

David the small-L libertarian — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:17:00 +0000

This essentially destroys the Electoral College which was set up to allow states to elect the Prez. Your proposal essentially would change the process to “majority rules.” Not a great idea in my opinion.

By: Michelangelo_L

Michelangelo_L — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:10:00 +0000

Healthcare aside, I feel the need to bring up that in California voting really is negligible as far as the Presidential election goes. We’re a blue state. During election season we only get campaign ads on cable because the Dems know we’ll vote for them anyway, and the Reps have given up spending money trying to change that. Until a major realignment, or other major change, there is no need to vote for the lesser evil in California.

Only during primary season does California have much say in the presidential election, and even then it’s a winner-takes-all system.

Wouldn’t the better option be to change California’s electoral policy to give electors proportionally? That way the conservatives in California (we exist) would be able to actually vote for their preferred candidates. Third parties might even be able to score an electoral vote or two. The only loser would be the Democrats, but why should we continue to give them our all votes?