"Why does everyone think moderates like Huntsman, Christie, and Jeb would do good?"

Do good in the election, or do good work if elected? Assuming the former, they have a shot to win it all because they have many centrist positions. If the primary system weren't so fucked up, we'd have much better individuals running for and winning the presidency.

When you control 56.8% of the seats after winning 51.2% of the vote, something is quite off due to gerrymandering. I suppose though that weak turnout, particularly among younger voters was more of a factor.

The last resort of the hypocrite is to cry "wahhhh.....gerry mandering". Funny how none of the fucking Democrats have a hard-on for fixing gerry-mendering when it works to their benefit.

I don't give a fuck if they won 50.000000001% of the vote, depending on how that vote was divided, they could have owned 100% of the government.

It is only the simple minded dolts that think that %vote won should equal % government you control.

I could EASILY make the argument that, if you pull out a few heavily populated democrat regions of the country, primarily on the border, in large cities, that Republicans overwhelmingly defeated the Libtards in the last election.

Anyone can jerk numbers around and spin a good fucking story when they want to whine. Bottom line....Democrat policies suck, and with the White House, control of the government, and a favorable media they *still* got their asses kicked in the elections. Maybe instead of bitching about gerry-mandering, you should be figuring out why Libtard policy is so offensive to the American people that they rejected it.

"Funny how none of the fucking Democrats have a hard-on for fixing gerry-mendering when it works to their benefit."

Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever vote against gerrymandering. It's mutually favorable, just at different times. The only people that hate it are independents. Republican supporters tend to make excuses for it and blame the Democrats, whereas Democratic supporters evade it and throw blame back at the Republicans by pointing out how much it helped them in X election year when asked.

"It is only the simple minded dolts that think that %vote won should equal % government you control."

Numerous countries do it that way. Plenty of those countries work better than we do. I guess there are a lot of simple minded dolts. Maybe a simple mind can help solve simple issues, and you're right - saying that a 50.000001% vote should control 50.000001% of the government is pretty simple.

"I could EASILY make the argument that, if you pull out a few heavily populated democrat regions of the country, primarily on the border, in large cities, that Republicans overwhelmingly defeated the Libtards in the last election."

Obviously, when you eliminate cities and minorities, you're going to leave a voting bloc which doesn't include cities and minorities, which is where Republicans thrive. Brilliant.

@bo

I'm completely in favor of eliminating corruption, stupidity, inefficiency, single-mindedness, and all that other stuff.

Are you thinking I don't? If so, what gave you that impression? Me thinking that Ted Cruz has more of a chance than Jeb Bush to win has nothing to do with my opinions, just my unbiased (yet maybe not correct) analysis.

I'm just against taxation in general because I think it violates the non-aggression principle. But I do agree that there are certain things that need money to fix (poverty, healthcare, education, climate change) but I'd like to see the money be as voluntary as possible, and government to be as small as possible.

If you think I'm crazy, you should here what Anarcho-Capitalists say. They believe in no government at all, at least I believe in some.

I do understand that the majority of people don't have any qualms about taxation, and that I'm never going to get to live in some kind of libertarian utopia (can't we have one state? Or a couple counties? Please? At least Justin Amash as president?), so all that people like me can do is try to make the government smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive.

No more Patriot Act. No more predator drones. No more drug war. No more civil forfeiture. Legalize same-sex marriage. Legalize marijuana. Lower taxes. Make sure welfare only helps people who really need it. Don't go to war. Do all that, and I'm happy.

@Jeff

I think that with only about 50% turnout a lot of the votes they need to win aren't moderates but alienated conservatives and liberals. The Ted Cruz crowd, the Bernie Sanders crowd, and the Ron Paul crowd. The Romney and Clinton crowds are important, I guess, but nominating a centrist has failed for the republicans almost every time.

Reagan was conservative, he won twice, Bush Sr. was Reagan's veep, so he got that vote, but lost in 1992 after shifting a bit to the center ("no new taxes"--oops), Dole, a moderate, lost, Bush Jr. technically won, but lost the popular vote, 9/11 revenge Bush won the conservative vote, and Obama beat both of the Republican moderates in 08 and 12.

@krellin (and everyone else who likes statistics or America)

2014

Repubs - 51.2% of the vote, 56.8% of the seats, +5.6% difference
Dems --- 45.5% of the vote, 43.2% of the seats, -2.3% difference
Others --- 3.3% of the vote, 0.0% of the seats, -3.3% difference

2012

Repubs - 47.6% of the vote, 53.8% of the seats, +6.2% difference
Dems --- 48.8% of the vote, 46.2% of the seats, -2.6% difference
Others --- 3.6% of the vote, 0.0% of the seats, -3.6% difference

Now that's Gerrymandering, or at least some inefficiencies in the system. The Republicans won it fair and square in 2014, but certainly stole it in 2012. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a more proportional system (MMP, STV, or something like that) so that this stuff would never happen? It would also give us third-party representation, both to keep the duopoly accountable and give alternate views a voice, and I'd *love* that.

2010

Repubs - 51.7% of the vote, 55.6% of the seats, +3.9% difference
Dems --- 44.9% of the vote, 44.4% of the seats, -0.5% difference
Others --- 3.4% of the vote, 0.0% of the seats, -3.4% difference

Well, at least Boehner's time as speaker began with a complete election win. And the Democrats actually got about as many seats as their vote share would give them in a PR system. Once again, the real losers are the third parties, which is a shame.

2008

Dems --- 53.2% of the vote, 59.1% of the seats, +5.9% difference
Repubs - 42.6% of the vote, 40.9% of the seats, -1.7% difference
Others --- 4.2% of the vote, 0.0% of the seats, -4.2% difference

So that's the most recent time the Democrats won and, golly gee, they seem to benefit from FPTP as well! And that's why no one votes for voting reform, because it benefits both parties. One more, just to expand the data picture:

2006

Dems --- 52.3% of the vote, 53.6% of the seats, +1.3% difference
Repubs - 44.3% of the vote, 46.4% of the seats, +2.1% difference
Others --- 3.4% of the vote, 0.0% of the seats, -3.4% difference

*AVERAGES:

Winning party: +4.6%
Second party: -1.0%
Other parties: -3.6%

Republican majorities: 5.2%
Republican minorities: 0.2%
Democratic majorities: 3.6% (1.6% less than the Republicans)
Democratic minorities: -1.8% (2.0% less than the Republicans)

So, overall, the system seems to favor the party with the most votes more than anything, although it does tend to lean Republican. The group that gets fucked the most is the dissenters, those who don't join the duopoly. As much as people want to make fun of "internet libertarians" complaining about the voting system. it's certainly something to complain about for anyone who likes, oh, I don't know, democracy.

(Sorry for the wall of text, by the way. I went full-on political nerd for that post.)

Republicans nominate people who can finance a campaign. That's the most important factor, not ideology.

Yeah, but they still need to win votes in the primaries and caucuses.

Also, I think that Cruz is doing quite good in fundraising. $30-something million I thought I heard. The Christian Right isn't without some currency of their own.

"I'm just against taxation in general because I think it violates the non-aggression principle. But I do agree that there are certain things that need money to fix (poverty, healthcare, education, climate change) but I'd like to see the money be as voluntary as possible, and government to be as small as possible."

I agree in certain instances. I think some taxes, like the estate tax for example, are just plain oversteps. I don't think the government should mess with someone's will. At the same time, the estate tax is a thing, it's not going anywhere, and I am much better off spending my time and energy on the things I referenced than on permanent taxes.

"No more Patriot Act. No more predator drones. No more drug war. No more civil forfeiture. Legalize same-sex marriage. Legalize marijuana. Lower taxes. Make sure welfare only helps people who really need it. Don't go to war. Do all that, and I'm happy."

These are the good things about libertarianism. This all sounds great. The problems are obvious, though, the main one in my mind being whether or not we trust the state to do the right thing. The plain and simple answer is no. Look at education. It's a fucking mess. You will have a state like Vermont that teaches a liberalistic, creative-minded ideology, an ideology I fully support as a creative class begins to make its way into the workforce in the last decade or so, and then Texas will keep on censoring evolution from their textbooks. What can you do? In a libertarian society, Texas is fully within its rights to censor evolution because the state decides what freedom of religion means to them - freedom to practice Christianity even if that means censoring reality. That creates a conflict of interest across the country that an entity such as the federal government ought to solve, but under libertarianism, education is a state thing, not a federal responsibility. Obviously, there are upsides to that too. I get all of those, but it's not like libertarianism solves any problems other than excessive federal influence (if such a thing exists in your mind) and excessive government spending.

Likewise, libertarianism may philosophically be about providing welfare only to those who need it, but states aren't. States are political and always will be. A right-wing state is going to undercover those that need it most and a left-wing state is going to spend more than necessary on welfare to ensure that everyone that may or may not need it has it. Personally, I prefer the latter, and if some people freeload, what are you gonna do? People freeload off of everything in this world. We're selfish beings. If you don't have a federal basis to bail out the stupid states, what do you do? Do you let homeless people starve? Do you tell battered women to stay put because there aren't any shelters? Does Planned Parenthood get ruined? Hell, in Indiana, there is an HIV outbreak going on right now, and the epicenter of this outbreak is the same place where a Planned Parenthood clinic that didn't even offer abortions was forced to close as part of a political scheme against the group by people that don't know what they're doing. The clinic offered free HIV education to the local public schools and testing. That clinic closed and their worst nightmare came true.

You sound like a different breed of libertarian than I am used to encountering - one who is able to balance something like faith with science and perception with reality, because the former of these things serves only to skew the latter. I appreciate that, but my whole point is that many people don't do this, and many of those people are in government. Until they're gone, your libertarian dream has no chance of coming true, and if anyone, such as Ron Paul (or Rand or even Amash) were to try it, it would fall flat, just as every other political system seems to do because not enough people are on board with it, and I simply don't trust people, particularly people in a number of states, to do the right thing instead of the political thing. Libertarianism just puts too much trust in those people.

Ideally the states would have limitations set on them as well.

I'm basically for personal freedom, and I think that both right-wing and left-wing schemes have been consistently undercutting that in this country for over 200 years. I think that, as you said, we're generally selfish beings. Therefore, the people in charge are going to want what? More control. Even if they put a nice-sounding term on it (equality, security, morality, etc.) more times than not these things give the government more control.

I think that they need to be reminded that there are certain rules in place that they need to follow. And I think we need to make more rules for them to follow! The best way to ensure that liberty isn't encroached is by limiting the government, both federal and state.

I don't trust people in state governments either, but I don't trust federal government people any more. I'd rather the states be different, and people can voluntarily choose to live in different states if they prefer those policies.

Going back to the Republican candidates, I thought this was a good article.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21649526-how-tell-listers-publicity-seekers-field-guide-2016
Honestly not sure if I will vote Republican or not though. I trust Hillary to do a good, if not exceptional, job as POTUS. Would prefer a pragmatic moderate like Romney, but I'll take what I can get.

"I don't trust people in state governments either, but I don't trust federal government people any more. I'd rather the states be different, and people can voluntarily choose to live in different states if they prefer those policies."

People can't just move because of politics. It is ridiculous to think that a lower class citizen in Oklahoma whose government is undercutting them in terms of welfare at every opportunity they can, as the government in Oklahoma would happily do, can simply pick up and move to California or Maine, where their welfare needs might be met more readily. People that have the luxury of being able to move are typically those that don't even need it. You have to understand that people in certain places are often there because there is nowhere else they feel they can afford to go.

@Jeff - How big a factor would you say gerrymandering was with respect to the Republican gains in the Senate? How many extra seats do you think it gave them? As for the House, gerrymandering has impact there (on both parties). Leinad's analysis is flawed since he used national voting percentages rather than looking at the 50 individual states (really 43 since you can ignore the 7 states with only 1 representative). If I get really inspired maybe I will run the numbers for the 43 states with multiple representatives to quantify the impact of gerrymandering there.

Losses in the Senate were in large part due to the "sixth year slump" that all two-term presidential administrations experience. No gerrymandering factor at all, obviously.

@bo

Yeah, I understand that, but I still think that a limited government is more important than ensuring that every state has the same philosophy. And it is democracy, yes? All of these states that have more conservative ideas about running themselves have predominately conservative governments, while the states with more progressive ideas have more progressive governments.

And in an ideal society, which I concede is hardly possible, necessary things like welfare would be more voluntary, instead of enforced taxation as it currently is.

I just think that government has much more power than it should have. Even state and local government have too much power. I don't trust any of them. Would it be crossing the line to call them power-hungry demagogues? If not, I'll call them that. If so, I'll just mutter it and vote for a party destined to get not much more than 1% nationally next November.

@Yaleunc

My analysis wasn't flawed. Is there gerrymandered seats? Of course. One look at a map of districts tells you that. But my analysis was to see if that influenced the national total. Also, it was partially to continue support for third parties, by showing that they're the ones who get screwed the most.

*Lots* of things I do are flawed, but my analysis, at least there, was certainly not.

Hilary Clinton

In other news, Senator Paul launched a de facto filibuster (not a "true" filibuster, as he was simply delaying proceedings, not an actual vote) against Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

It's a national disgrace that a senator is derided as a "radical" for DOING HIS JOB AND STANDING UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think it's this that's his radical position though.

"All of these states that have more conservative ideas about running themselves have predominately conservative governments, while the states with more progressive ideas have more progressive governments."

You misunderstand me. Conservative does not mean one who stifles science in schoolbooks. Conservative does not mean one who lets those in need starve. Conservative does not mean one who opposes abortion because of their faith. This is what many "conservative" states in the US are, and until they are rationally conservative instead of pseudo-conservative, I would rather not put aside the only safety net that people who suffer from pseudo-conservatism have.

This is why I support Bernie Sanders over someone like Ron Paul. They both operate at a political extreme in this country, but people tend to associate political extremes with political failures. The fact of the matter is that each of these political extremes would work if enacted in the way that these candidates would like, but neither Sanders' moderate socialism nor Paul's libertarianism will ever work unless the federal government becomes responsible for itself. We need to accomplish these things before we try to enact a new system. Personally, I think Bernie Sanders would be much better at cleaning house in the federal government and implementing proper policy instead of what we have now.

Democracy is not a license to stifle science on the basis of faith or anything else these pseudo-conservative states do. Freedom of religion means that the government shall not dictate to you how you, as an individual, practice your religion. It does not mean that the government decides whether or not abortion is moral or evolution is fact. All democracy is is a license for people like you and I to tell these idiots that that's not how it should be, and in order to do that, you need to start separating actual conservatives from idiots.

"It's a national disgrace that a senator is derided as a "radical" for DOING HIS JOB AND STANDING UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION."

Who called Senator Paul a radical? Certainly no one in this thread.

Stop setting up straw men. It makes you look bad.

Dear Oct

Senator Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) is playing chicken with your rights.

In February there were more than a half-dozen solidly pro-gun bills introduced in Carson City, but only Roberson's bill is still alive today.

I need you to call him right away.

The Senate Majority leader is supposed to help get bills passed.

But Senator Roberson has blocked every pro-gun bill that was introduced this session, except his own.

Now he's even blocking that!

Because Senator Roberson had given the order to block all the other bills, his was the only gun bill left.

The Assembly decided to try to add Campus Carry to Senator Roberson's bill, SB-175, and now it has to be voted on again in the Senate, but Senator Roberson is willing to kill his own bill in order to make sure no one else can pass theirs.

Senator Roberson's childishness could well cost Nevada gun owners their shot at Campus Carry.

I need you to call Senator Roberson at 702-612-6929.

Urge him to grow up and pass SB-175 as amended today.

If it doesn't happen by tomorrow, we'll lose our chance at any pro-gun laws being enacted until 2017.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not wait that long.

— Dudley

I have absolutely no idea what that means. Are there any American members who can shed any light on it?

What is that, one of those chain emails from a political site?

It is sent to my email and addressed to someone with a remarkably similar name to mine who I assume has a remarkably similar email address to mine. I assume he signed up to these emails, which seem to be from some lunatic pro gun lobby.

Is this sort of thing common over there?

Yup.

Oddly enough, I'm okay with campus carry with some restrictions. Whoever "Dudley" is paints it as a pro-gun measure when it was actually first proposed as a way to defend oneself against rapes or assaults on college campuses. I don't know when it turned into a gun rights thing.

@Gunfighter

This is why Rand is the only person I'd vote for of the two main parties. I wish he was his dad instead, but he's still the closest.

@bo

But I think that the fundamentalists would have a similar opinion about you. I guess I could provide a devil's advocate on the specifics that you mentioned, but that would take us off topic.

Here's the thing: democracy doesn't just apply for you. It applies for everyone. If things that others are doing are objectively wrong, then hopefully they can see that. If not, then let them do it until they do.

The thing is, you can't decide how people think. I would love it so much if I could decide how everyone thinks and suppress any thoughts I didn't like, but if I could do that, anyone else could, too. And I'd probably not like that very much.

People are going to have thoughts and do things you, me, Bernie Sanders, or Ron Paul disapprove of, and you can't stop that, only encourage them to see things differently. They should decide how to run their communities how they want to, even if it's ridiculous. But I still think that even state and local governments need to be limited.

@bo

Basically, you seem to dislike my system because it allegedly puts too much trust in the states. I dislike the current system because it puts too much trust in the government in general, especially federal, but even state.

The biggest problems with this country aren't with certain states restricting abortion or not teaching evolution, nor is it with certain states letting gay people marry or people smoke weed. The biggest problems are that a highly inefficient federal government continues to spy on it's citizens, wage illegal wars, seize property from people without even a hint of a warrant, and on top of that we have a highly increasing national debt that will be hard to ever pay off.

In other words, the enemy isn't conservatives, progressives (add whatever modifier you like on either), it's tyrants.

Lein -- I'm just curious -- what is your opinion of silencing/banning people in WebDip?

"The biggest problems are that a highly inefficient federal government continues to spy on it's citizens, wage illegal wars, seize property from people without even a hint of a warrant, and on top of that we have a highly increasing national debt that will be hard to ever pay off."

These are your political opinions. Those you seem to dismiss are mine. The real problem is the environment, but nobody on either side seems to care about that. Personally, I don't think it matters that the government snoops on people. It's immoral, but I couldn't care a whole lot less. The wars contribute massively to the national debt, which also doesn't matter so long as China stays nice (though that might not last forever). I would like to see some examples of this property seizure you speak of - I see more seizing of basic liberties than of property.

That's not my point, though. In fact, you made my point. Do you not consider someone who censors a school textbook a tyrant? Is someone that tells someone what he can and cannot put into his body not a tyrant? To cater to you a little bit, is someone that records and stores your data and telephone information or someone who, as you say, seizes property without "even a hint of a warrant" not a tyrant? We're fighting the same enemy here.

Where we differ is that I believe that government has the capability to become more responsible. I would rather entrust this to the federal government than states simply because there is more consistency, greater restrictions, and more attention on them when they do something wrong (theoretically). The fact of the matter is that there are too many people and too many issues in this country today to enact such sweeping libertarianism, and the more practical solution is to clean up these issues that we have laid out by holding the people in charge responsible, which both Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul want to do in different ways. Only one of those two is running this election cycle.