a few tips on being an extremist democrat

[zxtwou2]

i don't whole heartedly buy into this list...this is meant as kind of a joke..although some of it i agree is true. i'm sure there are just as many things someone can dig up on the republican party as well.

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest of the United States .

20. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day ..........but it's not okay to say 'Merry Christmas.'

[Mike]

hmm...I found this quite interesting...and really funny...cause too me its true...

[Buster]

Great points. It would be funny if it weren't true.

[PHeller]

notice it says Extremist Democrat...not "ANY DEMOCRAT".

"Rules for being a fool:

1. If a fact conflicts with a belief, dismiss the fact.
2. If something is uncomfortable to contemplate, it must be false.
3. The greater the number of people who agree, the truer the statement.
4. Beliefs one currently holds are more likely to be correct than beliefs one has been recently exposed to.
5. Vehemence correlates with truth."

[Mike]

Extremist....or just any democrat...your all still the same to me. :)

[JonsZX2SR]

There are plenty of moderate Democrats.

Unfortunately the liberal left ignores and tries to disenfranchise them (while still wanting their votes) because if moderates took over they would replace the liberal agendas with something that might work for the majority of citizens.

[PHeller]

What's the difference between a Conservative Extremist and a Muslim Extremist?

Country, Faith and Language. Even the faith part is hard to distinguish because many of the Quran's teachings are very similar to the old testament, in fact, it even recognizes Jesus Christ as a Prophet of Allah (or God).

What I'm getting at is that extremists are a bad thing no matter what the faith or party. When you believe that your way is the only way and other belief deserves death (or suffering), your an extremist.

[Buster]

^

Ridiculous. :D

[PHeller]

^

Ridiculous. :D

What part? Disprove me.

[Mike]

^^I think he just likes bustin' your balls. :)

[JonsZX2SR]

Extremism is a problem in itself, regardless of whether it is conservative, liberal, muslim, zionist, or christian to name a few varieties. They all believe that ideology or dogma is more important than finding a working solution for the majority of a society, or tol;erating and learning from differences of opinion.

Problems are amplified when you have a multi-cultural society (or plot of land for that matter) occupied by more than one extremist group. Conservatives and moderates tend to get trampled by extremist behaviors.

Don't take anything said by extremists or by Buster seriously... :rofl:

[capitalcrew]

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

:rofl:

[zxtwou2]

What's the difference between a Conservative Extremist and a Muslim Extremist?

Country, Faith and Language. Even the faith part is hard to distinguish because many of the Quran's teachings are very similar to the old testament, in fact, it even recognizes Jesus Christ as a Prophet of Allah (or God).

What I'm getting at is that extremists are a bad thing no matter what the faith or party. When you believe that your way is the only way and other belief deserves death (or suffering), your an extremist.

see..that's what i'm talkin about...more of this kind of stuff, guys! like i said, i couldn't find anything like this on republicans...and the email i got originally had more things in the list that i took out because i knew it was totally ridiculous. i added the "extremist" part because i know it's only true for the most leftists of dems...i'm by no means saying this is normal thinking for a typical democrat. but i'm against extremist ______ (fill in the blank). i'm a conservative independent more than anything.

[JonsZX2SR]

You don't think that right wing Christian fundamentalists who support the Republican party and who are intolerant of things such as science and evolution, freedom of choice, freedom of non-christian religion, etc. aren't another example of extremism.

Consider those who try to force religious teachings into schools, try to get teachers fired or school board members who disagree with them ousted, who preach violence toward people who live alternate lifestyles, who run a round screaming that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell, in particular politicians, etc.

These people are as equally reprehensible as the left wing Democrats. A majority of them support the Republicans and they whine if someone is not conservative enough.

[zxtwou2]

^no...i do, jon. i just couldn't find a list already put together like i did for the democrats. that's why i told PHeller good job on the reply..that's what i'm looking for! i'm looking for reasons why both parties extremist views are bad.

i'm for the idea of religious freedom...like praying in school (not forcedly)
i'm against the ACLU on a LOT of things
i'm pro gun
i'm anti abortion (if used as birth control instead of for medical or psychological reason like rape)
i'm anti welfare (or it needs to be totally redone at very least)
i'm anti socialist medical (unless only medical conditions that are NOT result of personal responsibility are covered...i.e..why should i pay for lung cancer treatment of a smoker)


for those things, you could say i swing more toward being a republican...but i'd consider myself more open minded than most republicans in the means of environmental issues, foreign diplomacy, and other things.

[PHeller]

I hate it when people just collectively generalize a whole group of people into one way of thinking.

Just because I'm pro-environmental responsibility, pro-diplomacy, anti-"nation building", anti-Saudi (government not people), anti-Israel (government not people), Pro-personal rights, anti-boarder fence, anti-privacy invasion (patriot act), anti-Iraq War (see Anti-"Nation Building"), Pro-UN Peacekeeping Force in Iraq, pro-nuclear, pro-windmills, pro-solar, anti-hydroelectric, anti-urban sprawl, anti-ANWR drilling, anti-any wildlife refuge drilling, pro-make business pay for more infrastructure improvement, pro-train, anti-SUV, pro-rock/indie/alternative, and anti-rap and country DOESN'T MEAN I'M A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL!

[capitalcrew]

Yes it does feller.

[Gregersonke]

social liberalism http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png

[MellowedZX2]

Isn't it great to be able to have all these freedoms of opinion. Lets keep it that way, for both sides of the party, you know what I mean.

I am a conservative republican, there are alot of thins going on I don't agree with, and alot of things I haven't educated my self on, but I am slowly working my way there, that doesn't mean I am going to change my views but I am trying to learn about them.

I really think that it doesn't matter what you believe, if you look hard enough there will be some one who has written about it, and help support you.

Eh... I don't know, can't we all just get along.

Joel

[zxtwou2]

what i'd love to happen, is for the extremists to finally piss off the moderates in each party so much, that more than 2 parties have a chance at the presidencey/congress/everything political.

[PHeller]

There is no reason why their can't be a 4 party system. Part of it is how the campaigns are funded, and part of it is because the media doesn't cover anyone who isn't a Republican or Democrat.

This is partially because we're too worried about other parties "stealing votes" from our canidates.

Personally, I think our election system needs changed anyhow, as I think the whole idea of a President being elected without the popular vote is a bit ridiculous.

http://phillies2008.org/
http://www.lp.org/

[Buster]

The popular vote would ruin the elections.

The Founding Fathers set up an electoral college and had the future in mind. It has worked well.

If we elected by the popular vote, the candidates would ignore the entire nation except New York City, L.A., Detroit and Chicago.

They'd also have to have agendas tailored more towards urban populations (aka welfare crowd) since they hold a lot of the population...

The MAJORITY of the nation would be screwed.

Take a look at the 2000 and 2004 election maps. The blue represents the votes for the Democrat candidate. Notice how the only places they really won individual county popular votes were concentrated mainly around large cities: New York, CA cities, Phoenix, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Miami, St. Louis, Seattle, Pittsburgh. The remainder of the country voted the opposite way and under the electoral college system, the majority of the nation gets a candidate that represents them. If we elected by popular vote, you can see only a few miles of the thousands of miles of the nation would be represented by the winner, which would be a bad thing for the majority of the nation. Also, the winner of the electoral votes in nearly every election ALSO wins the popular vote, so the system DOES work for both the majority of AREA and POPULATION of the nation. The EC makes it necessary for the candidates to visit and also appeal to EVERY state, or at least most of them. With a popular vote, most states would never see any attention from any candidates. Chicago, Detroit, NYC, CA, maybe a couple of cities in TX would be the campgrounds for campaigns. Platforms would have to be modified to please those in cities, not for the good of the entire nation.

2000:
http://realclearpolitics.com/news_images-on_site/countymap.jpg

2004:
http://realclearpolitics.com/images/rcp%20electoral/2004_results_by_county..gif



I've found that MOST people advocating for the abolishment of the electoral college are just those suffering from "sour grapes". If their candidate had won, they'd be praising the system.

[JonsZX2SR]

But there is a problem with the Electoral College (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html),and I'm surprised that with all your research you didn't bring it up.

There are 538 electors in the electoral college. 435 are based on there being 435 members of the house of representatives and are proportional to population. 100 are based on 100 senators, with each state getting 2 additional electors. Washington, D.C. gets the same number of electors as the smallest states or 3 electors.

What this means is that the weight or value of individual votes is not equal. Voters in states like Wyoming vote for 3 electors. However, in larger states, with larger populations, such as CT 5X as many voters vote for 7 electors or 1.4 electors per vote.

In CA 53X as many voters as in Wyoming vote for 55 electors or 1.038 electors per votes.

The system was set up to empower states rights, but I doubt it accomplishes anything anymore.

A better solution would be to abolish the extra electors and have 436 electors (one for each representative district plus one for D.C.) Voters in each district would only vote for the 1 elector from their district.

With that level of granularity, for example, you could have one candidate have a huge majority in one place (say CA) and take all 53 electors, but the other candidate win everything else by 1% and receive the remaining 383 electors.

This would avoid highly skewed votes in a few population centers from dominating an election, while being more equal in providing weight to the electoral count.

[ZetecInside]

They'd also have to have agendas tailored more towards urban populations (aka welfare crowd) since they hold a lot of the population...

The MAJORITY of the nation would be screwed.

If we elected by popular vote, you can see only a few miles of the thousands of miles of the nation would be represented by the winner, which would be a bad thing for the majority of the nation. Also, the winner of the electoral votes in nearly every election ALSO wins the popular vote, so the system DOES work for both the majority of AREA and POPULATION of the nation. The EC makes it necessary for the candidates to visit and also appeal to EVERY state, or at least most of them. With a popular vote, most states would never see any attention from any candidates. Chicago, Detroit, NYC, CA, maybe a couple of cities in TX would be the campgrounds for campaigns. Platforms would have to be modified to please those in cities, not for the good of the entire nation.


Shouldn't the attention of presidential candidates be focused on the needs of the vast majority of the nation? 80% of Americans live in cities.

Urban voters aren't hijacking the electorate - they are the electorate. Campaigns should primarily focus on cities, because that's where most Americans live.

The disproportionate focus of campaigns on rural voters due to the electoral college is what leads to horribly wasteful public policies such as agricultural subsidies.

urban populations (aka welfare crowd)

Before you refer to urban populations as "the welfare crowd", you might want to take a look at where most tax revenue comes from and where it is spent. Urban citizens aren't leeching off the rest of the country. Quite the contrary, actually.

[Buster]

PA elects their Governor with a popular vote. No electoral college-type election.

Basically, Philadelphia elects a Governor for the rest of the state. The outcome? Philly gets special breaks, special projects, funding, etc. The remainder of the Commonwealth is being completely screwed on taxes, especially property taxes while Philly gets relief. Gun laws for Philly are trying to be enforced across PA. The rest of PA may get stuck paying for a rail system that basically only Philly and Pittsburgh has access to.

Laws for the city are being applied state-wide and are making the majority of the state miserable, but Governor Rendell was elected with a 103% voter turnout in Philly so we just have to sit back and suffer.

This would be even worse if applied nationally. Our system works well when not exploited as in the Democrat Primary election (Florida, Michigan, Superdelegates).

Superdelegates should be outlawed, but the EC serves its purpose well. Voter fraud should be more strictly tracked and prevented, perhaps by a national Voter ID card to prevent multiple voters, dead people voting and illegal immigrants and felons voting, all major problems in URBAN areas, who would control elections with a popular vote.

We are not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic and were not founded and set up for a Popular vote.

[JonsZX2SR]

We are not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic and were not founded and set up for a Popular vote.

US Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

You're splitting hairs with semantics about the US not being democratic. We have been described as a democratic republic. If you want to argue we are a representative republic, consider how those representatives are elected. The last time I checked, elections were held using a democratic process. If you disagree, then describe the process by which elections held in other terms.

To change the electoral process by which the president is elected you would have to amend the constitution. The electoral process and requirements for being president are spelled out in Article II, Section 1. This has been modified to change the way the VP is elected and also to give D.C. 3 electors. I'll find a reference for those changes describing how they were done.

You're argument that people in PA are screwed, because the govenor is elected by popular vote is an opinion. It could also be construded as being racist or elitist and other people may have other opinions. Who says your opinion is more valued than those of urban citizens, especially if there are more of them than of you ???

If more people hold opinions that disagree with yours than people who agree, you may be screwed. However, you're screwed not because your opinion is correct, but more likely for other reasons (people can fill in the blanks here.)

I do agree the national process for electing a president does need safeguards to prevent one region of one demgraphic from dominating elections. A mathematical or statistical approach is called granularity.

Divide the vote up into coarse BUT EQUAL granules, rather than a strictly popular vote. Let the population within each deide if each granule is 0 or 1, black or white, red or blue, then add up the number of red or blue granules without including the magnitude of the majority within each to avoid using total popular vote.

In the example I gave previously, 436 granules or electors each with about the same number of popular votes per electors, so they have equal weight. It doesn't matter if someone wins and district by 1 vote or 1 million votes. the extra votes don't carry over.

The problem with the current electoral college is the voters have different weight depending on where they reside. Voters in DC vote for a total of 3 electors. While 53 times as many voters in CA vote for 53+2 electors.

So someone voting in D.C. (or Wyoming) carries about 2.9X ( 3 / (55/53) = 3 / 1.038 = 2.89 ) the weight as someone voting in CA. Each D.C. voter on the average votes for 3 electors, while each voter in CA votes on average for 1.038 electors.

I do agree that we should keep the electoral system, but get rid of the extra electors and of awarding electors statewide in uneven buckets. Have 436 separate votes in 436 equal voting districts to elect 436 electors and avoid a purely popular vote.

[zxtwou2]

This would be even worse if applied nationally. Our system works well when not exploited as in the Democrat Primary election (Florida, Michigan, Superdelegates).


let's not forget the Daly's. it's like downstate IL doesn't exist...we are a very republican state, with exception of chicago...but in chicago they say "vote early, and vote often". hell, even a dead democrat can vote in IL.

[Buster]

let's not forget the Daly's. it's like downstate IL doesn't exist...we are a very republican state, with exception of chicago...but in chicago they say "vote early, and vote often". hell, even a dead democrat can vote in IL.

Yep. Exactly why a popular vote could NEVER benefit our nation or work.

[ZetecInside]

let's not forget the Daly's. it's like downstate IL doesn't exist...we are a very republican state, with exception of chicago...but in chicago they say "vote early, and vote often". hell, even a dead democrat can vote in IL.


The population of the Chicago metro area is almost 8 million people. That's more than 60% of the population of the entire state of Illinois.

Illinois isn't a "very republican state with the exception of Chicago". It's a very democratic state with the exception of the outlying rural communities who make up a minority of voters.

The trend of urban cities dominating the electorate isn't some twisted corruption of American politics. It's a natural extension of the fact that America is an urban nation. Under the electoral college, rural communities are getting more money and resources than they deserve simply because they happen to live in key swing states, which forces politicians to court them. There is no reason why individual voters in Iowa or Ohio should have more relative political influence than voters in Texas or California.

[JonsZX2SR]

The concept of dividing elections into regions or districts to prevent highly skewed results in populated areas isn't a new one. People can dispute it all they want, results within any region (state) is determined by popular vote, but excess popular vote doesn't have an additive effect. A example of how this works is given below.

Imagine a country, PoliticsReligionLand having 50 voting districts with 100 voters residing in each district, spread out over 5 regions. The national office of Grand Pubah is open for election and two candidates, Buster and Vit are running for office. Buster has wild support in his home district and one western district picking up 92% of the vote in each (92-8 ) and gaining 2 electors.

The remaining 48 districts are closely fought, but Vit secured a victory in each winning 51-49 and gaining 48 electors.

So Vit wins mild demographic support across the entire nation and wins the general election 48-2.

However, if you count the popular vote, out of 5,000 ballots cast, Buster gathered 2536 vs. 2464 for Vit. Since it doesn't matter how much you win a district by, you only get one elector. The extra popular vote gains nothing.

It could have been even worse. Buster could have won the 2 districts described above (92-8 ) and won another 18 eastern districts with a 51-49 vote. In the remaining districts Vit would have eked out 51-49 victories giving him 30 electors and the title Grand Pubah.

In that case, Vit would win the election with 30 electors and 2428 popular votes, while Buster had 20 electors and 2572 popular votes.

If you are concerned about demographics, large population centers and the importance of regionalism, then a granular election, where excess votes have no weight, does balance the effect of popular vote and the need to gather support across demographics and regions.

* * * * *
However, there is a problem with the current electoral college, where the weight of individual votes is unequal across the country. This occurs because the states have different populations and 2 extra votes are given to all states, large or small.

In the example above, each elector was decided by 100 votes. You could allow +/-5% variation and still give approx. equal weight to voters, no matter where they live. Not so for the cuirrent electoral system used by the US.

What happens is if you compare the number of electors given to one large state vs. the number given to a bunch of small states with the same total population, the voters in small states get to vote for more electors.

Consider CA which has 55 electors, 53 based on population plus an additional 2 for the 2 senators.

Compare that to a group small states which have an equal population as CA and the same number of population based electors (53) plus 2 additional for EACH state.

Consider AZ (8+2) OR (5+2) WY (1+2) WA (9+2) UT (3+2) NM (3+2) NV (3+2) ID (2+2) MT (1+2) IA (5+2) NE (3+2) KS (4+2) OK (5+2) and SD (1+2) = (53+28 )

With roughly the same population as CA, the voters in these states get to vote for 81 electors with 53 based on population, plus an extra 28 (2X14). The combined ballots of these voters are worth 81/55 = 147% of the ballots of people in CA.

It would be impractical to divide the country up into 51 equal states for national elections, but you could get rid of the extra electors and hold 436 individual elections (435 House of Rep. voting districts plus 1 for D.C.) This would prevent a wildly skewed vote in one or two big states from tipping the balance, but count all votes approx. equally at the same time.

Time for a constitutional amendment.

[Mike]

Your really scared me....if it were up to either of those two...we'd all be fucked. :(