If voting did any good, it would be illegal.

That's wrong.

How do you know it's wrong? Trust me, I've seen a lot of elections and none of them did any good.

I know it's wrong because it sure as hell does at least enough good to keep the people in power from staying there their whole lives.

When people don't vote, you get shit like in Burma.


That's not to say the wrong vote can't be a mistake too: see Hitler, Mugabe, Chavez, Ahmadinejad.

But if you think it does no good you are wrong. You have the freedom to vote for whomever you wish.

HAHAHAHA! I opened this thread because it said mid-terms, and I just finished my midterms, so I thought it was a discussion of tests.

The beauty of the American Constitution is that every 2 years, we have the opportunity to have a minor bloodless revolution. Every 4 years we can completely overturn the government without a shot being fired.

To all the assholes out there that bitch and complain and say the system is broken -- then get off your ***fucking ass** and get involved, you stupid douches!!!!

As for THIS year, the will of the people is clear, and Obama is fucking **hated**, and the minor revolution is a *complete* success. The fucking Liberals and their big government have been **thrown out*** in favor of smaller government ideology, lower taxes, less government....

Hurray for Mid-terms! Time to put an end to fucking Obama's despotic, Socialist rule.

ehh.... lol krellin, i'm going to play politifact on your ass.

GOP probably wont gain the senate, so the revolution is hardly "complete"

and GW Bush was waayyy more hated than Obama is, just fyi.


Anyway as for my local politics: I am SO pissed my fellow Texans elected that fuckface Perry.

He murdered Cameron Todd Willingham, an innocent man who was legally and factually innocent. He is a bastard in every sense of the word.




Not to mention he has insulted the Texan people by not debating, not speaking to the state's newspaper editorials.... LEAVING the state before the election, and additionally, insinuating he may not even stay on for his whole term...

this is also the guy who insinuated that texas might consider seceding.

he clearly doesn't give a shit about texas. i'm beginning to understand why someone set fire to his governor's mansion... rash though that was.


if he finishes his new term... he will have been governor for 14 years.

can you believe that.....

also i can't believe rand paul got elected lol what a joke

also I can't believe Barack Obama got elected, lol, what a joke.

Krellin, didn't you notice that the Republican Party almost doubled the size of government in just eight years very recently? Or is your memory really that short?

This is undoubtedly a repudiation for Obama, but to say that he's absolutely hated seems extreme. To be honest, I think the states has just gone completely nuts. I feel myself hoping you're all just putting it on as a giant practical joke. Like a nation of 300 million Joaquin Phoenixes. Christine O'Donnell's loss not withstanding, the idea that any Tea Party Republicans got elected at all just leaves me completely stunned. How did it come to this? Ugh. The only way I'll sleep easy tonight is by reminding myself that I'm not American.

Also, krellin, people keep using words like "despot" and "socialist". I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Contrary to popular belief, a "despot" is not just "someone you don't like very much" it actually has a meaning. I suggest you learn to use your words before you try and discuss politics with the grown-ups.

haha...

yeah i know what you mean about these tea parties.



whew. thing is i actually am american. gonna have to answer for this abroad. and JUST as the rest of the world thought we were coming around...

Don't worry. My frustration aside, I do realize that not every American thinks and acts the same way. To be fair my own government is not exactly making the best impression on the world stage at the moment either. At least with tea partiers in US government, the idiocy of the current Canadian government will go unnoticed internationally. (Not that anyone outside Canada really notices Canadian government anyway.)

well that new mayor of toronto certainly sounds.... positively lovely.

:P

Oh I know. That was embarrassing too. A fat angry redneck for mayor... of TORONTO. What next? Sarah Palin for Mayor of San Francisco?

OK! Someone PLEASE answer this before I go completely nuts trying to figure it out. This all refers to the live update election map that Thucy gave a link to. As I understand it a check mark next to the candidates name means they've won. Yet in California, there's a check mark next to Boxer, despite the fact that Fiorina currently has more votes and only 20% of precints are reporting. Can anyone explain to a young voter what's going on?

@ Krellin - As a fellow Republican I too am going to suggest a better word for despotic. Socialist isn't too far off the mark, at least in terms relative to American politics. However, instead of despotic, I suggest ineffectual. It is the opposite of Winston Churchill's homage to the RAF, never in the field of human politics, has someone done so little with so much. Obama had a supermajority and all he managed to pass was a watered-down healthcare plan. I still hate him for that much, but a stronger president could've made it a lot worse.

That means that he's projected to win. I assume that, in that case, the more liberal districts have yet to be counted, so it can be assumed that he's won based on the fact that the majority of conservative ballots have already been counted, while the majority of liberal votes have yet to be counted. Mind you, that is definitely an assumption.

These are all predicted winners. Even where elections have closed, they haven't counted the ballots. They do exit polling when people leave and use sophisticated statistics to predict who the winner will be. Occasionally, they're wrong, but rarely.

Umm, as I understand it news sources make projections based on a number of different criteria. They take into account current vote counts at polling stations, as well as the demographics of what precincts have reported back and which have not, as well as data from exit polls. But mostly exit polls, especially in a state like California. Exit polls are surprisingly reliable.

Mr. Durden - the California Secretary of State's website is reporting (in the infrequent minutes when it is available) that Boxer is winning by a few points. Not sure how NPR is figuring Fiorina is ahead.

*I meant exit polls, not actual votes, my bad

Also, not to be picky Mr. LJ Tyler Durden, but you can't say that "Socialist isn't too far off the mark, at least in terms relative to American politics." Nothing Obama has done is even remotely close to socialism. Socialism doesn't just mean "left wing". According to wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Obama has not moved to make any institution publicly or commonly owned. Therefore he is not socialist. Furthermore, you can't say "Socialist especially relative to America". "Socialism" has the same meaning everywhere, unlike words such as "left wing" or "liberal".

Beat, beat, beat the tribal drum!

LOL (@chrisp)

Ummm, according to that website Thucy posted, write-in votes are leading the senate race in Alaska. What's the deal on that?

The write in candidate in Alaska is the incumbent, lost the republican party primary round and decided to continue the campaign as a write in candidate.

There was a very hotly contested Republican primary in Alaska this year. There was talk that the loser would run as a third party candidate, but that didn't happen. I bet he's the write-in recipient.

Yeah, it's Murkowski. This hasn't happened since the 50's

Murkowski is a woman, she was the republican "establishment" candidate, but she got "teabagged" from the right by nutjob Miller. Im a big Move On/progressive type so this midterm was a bit of a punch to the gut but there were some (tiny) bright spots, The witch O'Donnel lost badly, Reid beat crazy tea bag Angle and now we get to watch the civil war in the republicans as the Republican establishment blaming the tea baggers for them not winning the senate try to minimize their role in Washington and sabotage Palins path to nomination. Palin and the tea baggers will act like they have won by a landslide and think the government should listen to them.

Jesus.

Ok people, GET A GRIP. It's just a fucking election.

70% or so of the people are straight party line voters. If they ran an ax murderer against someone who raped babies against a sane third party candidate, a huge chunk would *still* vote their party by rote. So don't get all bent out of shape that some people voted against a candidate you dislike.

The rest are swing voters, who can be persuaded to vote for one party or the other. They tended to support Obama two years ago and Republicans this time around. There are various reasons why that is, but note that where Tea Party candidates tended to *lose*, a more moderate Republican candidate was projected to win. This indicates that the Tea Party is something that certainly can't afford to be ignored, but that it does *not* represent a majority of the population.

Is it the end of the world that we have divided government? Don't be an idiot - we *usually* have divided government. *Nearly always* when one party controls the Presidency and both chambers of Congress they get hammered in the next election cycle. This is because the moderates tend to either get skeeved by what the wingnuts on the far side of the controlling party suggest and want a check on their power or because they think the party in power should have stepped up and used the power they were handed more wisely. It's a lot easier to blame someone for failure than to celebrate what they did.

The thing to keep in mind is that the "divide" between the parties is one of degree, and that's not a bad thing. It's not like a huge chunk of the electorate wants to re-enslave African Americans, or invade Mexico, or launch a socialist paradise [1] - but if you look at politics in other countries, issues that people in the states consider non-issues are critical. Look at the "kill teh gays" law in Uganda as an example.

So, just chill out, okay? While there is plenty to criticize, and there will be wackadoodles who pretend to speak for "the people", in the long run the country tends to do a pretty good job of not going completely off the deep end.

[1] For those of you who are going to bring up health care, don't go there, unless you're prepared to defend Social Security

@LJ: Don't you realize that the biggest move toward socialism in US history was taken by George W Bush, when he signed a bill authorizing the government to spend $700 billion to nationalize the banking industry? Since then, Obama has been making the US less socialist by returning these government-owned corporations to private control.

Hell, I'm not even that mad about the election results... because now the Republican party actually has to do something besides yell and scream and cover its ears.

They'll have to attempt to govern. I actually wanted them to take over the Senate, because then it wouldn't take long to reveal how terrible they are at actually following through on the rhetoric.

However, there was an event in my home state where a large amount of money was spent on a campaign to recall three of our State Supreme Court justices because they struck down a law banning gay marriage(Iowa). Nothing quite like turning impartial judges into people who have to campaign like politicians.

That's not going to come around and bite us in the ass, right?

Oh right I hearda bout that Jack Klein.

Last I heard the judges were taking the high road and not fundraising, am I right?

They must have gone up in smoke...

Yep. There were some groups doing so on their behalf, but the judges pointedly refused to campaign for themselves.

It still was only 54%, not exactly a landslide, but still. Chilling effect.

But aren't retention elections for exactly that reason? If you want apolitical (or rather, backroom political) judges then change the law and have the state government (read ABA) select them. Judges will always have a political role regardless of how you choose them, at least with retention/actual elections there's some semblance of a popular mandate. Judicial elections is a far more complicated thing than anybody probably realizes.

As for the GOP being the party of "no," that's why they won so big. Regardless of whatever merits individual sections might have, the Obama agenda was wildly unpopular and was seen as government overreach. This election was a repudiation of that agenda by the American people, the second time they have flat out rejected the policies of a liberal president in the last twenty years. The US might not be a Republican nation, but this election does confirm it is soldily center right.

Republicans still aren't that popular since they broke all their promises about controlling spending. In this new Congress they won't be able to get anything of substance passed since the Senate is still run by the Democrats and Obama can veto anything. They will, however, be able to propose popular programs opposed by the Democrats which the Democrats will then be forced to vote down. Anybody who pretends to know how this balance of power will effect the next two years going into 2012 is lying, but on balance it's a worse situation for Obama come the new Congress in 2011 than it has ever been for him in office.

If Buck gets elected in Colorado I am fleeing the state immediately.

Retention elections are to provide a method to remove a corrupt or incompetent judge from office, not to punish them for making a judgment on the law. They did a very simple reading on the Iowa Constitution, and failed to find a rational basis for the Iowa law banning gay marriage.

The judiciary is supposed to be impartial and independent, and this retention vote perverts the spirit of the law, despite being correct by the letter.

If you elect judges, you expose then to the popular will. As much as I sympathize with the civic mythology of stoic judges impartially interpreting the law, it's never ever been that way. I don't doubt that these judges were serious and made a decision based on their honest interpretation of the law, but judges are political actors, no matter how cynical that sounds. If they're up for election they can be voted out. It's that simple.

The alternative is the American Bar Association "recommending" candidates to the state government in the same way the British Prime Minister "recommends" knighthoods to the Queen. Neither are prefect, but the reality is that those are the options.

See, Iowa has both. The judges for various positions in the state are recommended by a nonpartisan board, which forwards a list to the governor, who selects them from there.

But every X number of years, judges come up for retention(with the purpose being to remove incompetent or corrupt judges).

http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Public_Information/About_Judges/Selection/

Yeah I like that compromise, but only when it works.

To me its related to a similar sort of thing, related to distorting the spirit of the law, and that's:

A constitutional amendment for really really specific and cultural things like gay marriage or flag burning (or even pot), including the prohibition amendment.

Total bullshit. A constitutional amendment is no place for that kind of hogwash, even if there is nothing actually prohibiting it from being proposed, I will always vote against such madness. That is not what amendments are supposed to be for, they are supposed to amend the constitution.


If they were included it would end up looking like this:

"This document exists to outline the structure of government and to enumerate the powers it has in our system. The judiciary....

.... and those are all the powers and processes our government will have.

PS Gays aren't allowed to get married.

PSS you better not burn the flag, that's illegal

PSSS booze is bad for you so its also illegal.



wtf???

The way I see it, they want the government to tell fellow citizens what they can or cannot do in their private lives, when they're not hurting anybody else.

I mean, I personally think that religion is insanity, and people shouldn't believe that shit. However, I shouldn't be allowed to use the powers of the government to make it so people aren't allowed to practice their religions. Believe whatever crazy shit you want, but don't force your particular viewpoint on others.

@Thucydides:
Isn't that what the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were, though? ("A constitutional amendment for really really specific and cultural thing" in this case, slavery/retaliation to southern un-cooperativeness.) i don't think anyone thinks those were bad laws (except maybe our fine justice Scalia). Would/do you support those?

Not the same thing. Those are in the same vein as the Bill of Rights, that is to say, they endow people with rights.

Whereas something that outlaws something as fucking specific as flag burning has no place.

Gay marriage or abortion have a bit more case to be amendments. Though if either amendment explicitly outlawed either of the two it would be (relatively) unprecedented as an Amendment which restricts rather than grants rights.

Except the repealed prohibition amendment that is.

I think the difference there between amendments 13-15 and an amendment to ban gay marriage or abortion or intoxicating substances is that, amendments 13-15 still exist to protect individual rights, and follow from and reinforce rights already guaranteed elsewhere in the constitution. On the other hand the 21st amendment (the prohibition amendment) and various other amendments banning gay marriage, abortion or other intoxicating substances are rather arbitrary and for the most part, have very very little to do with the subject matter of the rest of the constitution, and it can be argued occasionally conflict with rights guaranteed elsewhere in the constitution.

@Mafia - an amendment can't conflict with a previous amendment. The later amendment always take precedence. So if an amendment got passed that said "Every first born child is to be turned over to the government for inhumane experimental purposes," it would override all the amendments prior to it dealing with individual rights.

Draugnar: I'm not sure. Unless the language was quite explicit (X amendment no longer applies in these cases, etc etc) it would be an interesting legal debate.

Its irrelevant, because I can't see that kind of batshit happening.