Proof?

http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/voting/voting.hrml?GESTFIPS=15&INSTANCE=Nov+2012

Shows that voting percentages are lower when presidential elections are not involved

Of course voter turnout is lower when the White House isn't up. Is that surprising?

No one would dispute that. However, you said that "only 35-48%of the population turns up to vote for any given election." That's not true, and the site you linked doesn't support that.

"What's funny is you said you'd vote for Bachmann over Paul, while complaining about Paul's positions on healthcare and ties to the religious right."

READ, PUTIN:

"I'd take Hillary in a heartbeat over [Rand Paul], Marco Rubio, Michelle Bachmann (if she were fool enough to run again), Jeb Bush, and just about any other contender out there."

I said I'd take Hillary over ALL of them, INCLUDING Bachmann.

"And where's the vice in strict observance of the Constitution?"

I'm of the school of thought that says the Constitution is a living, breathing document, rather than being an Antonin Scalia type, who views it as more dead and set in stone. What's more, smart as our Founders were, I also recognize that whether they're Aristotle, Shakespeare, or Galileo...or Jefferson, Washington, or Madison, men and thinkers hundreds of years in the past are almost certainly going to be wrong and flawed in some ways. I think it's folly to act as if the Constitution is dead, set, and we must follow it to the 18th century letter, pretending that the last near-250 years never happened. Even when Constitutionalists take the amendments into account, I find that the general attitude is far less flexible than those who view the document as one that can be interpreted and adaptable to a new era, rather than one that was forged in the 18th century and therefore we must adhere to an 18th century understanding, structure, and style of "modern" government.

I won't even get into the fact that the Constitution's painfully flawed and has always been dated...some points in it have simply outlived their "morality" ("Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons," anyone?) or pertinence (hi there, Abolition and Subsequent Repealing of Abolition) or drastically need to be updated (hello there, 2nd Amendment you...with your wonderfully-dated and far-too-simple take on what is a VERY complex issue...gun ownership is important and should be protected, but the 2nd Amendment, as Supreme Court Justices themselves have observed, does a poor job addressing the gun ownership/control issue in the 21st century, with one Justice arguing it's outlived its usefulness) and so on.

As for this point: "You don't loathe Rand Paul. You loathe the caricature of Rand Paul you've created in your mind of him. The fact that you could somehow, as a liberal, support Bachman over him means your views have no grounding in reality."

1. I DON'T support Bachmann over him...I said I supported Hillary over all of them, INCLUDING Bachmann...see the above on that...

2. I think Rand Paul IS a caricature of himself, frankly, or at least of libertarian, Ron Paul-ite ideals. I cannot take that joker seriously...

I'm tempted to say the only way I'd vote for him is if he WERE running against Michelle Bachmann and I had to choose between him and that loon...but frankly, in such an election year, that'd be the sign it's time for me to pack up with friends and drive along the West Coast up to Vancouver and outta here! ;)

Yes it does, pull up indivual states(start with illinois) and look.

"Voting rates are historically higher in years with presidential elections than in congressional election years. For example the national voting rate in 2012 -a Presidential election- was 61.8 percent while the national voting rate in 2010 -a Congressional election- was 45.5 percent. For 2012 the voting rate in Illinois (61.5 percent) was not statistically different from the national voting rate of 61.8 percent."

That is from site and that's for congressmen.

These are for national contests, state figures go even lower

Does Hillary Clinton sound like the name of a singer from the 70's, 80's or perhaps even 90's to anyone else?

"I'm tempted to say the only way I'd vote for him is if he WERE running against Michelle Bachmann and I had to choose between him and that loon"

Versus on the last page where you'd have voted for Bachmann over him in a heartbeat?

I mistrust Hillary. She tells too many silly lies over small things.

"Versus on the last page where you'd have voted for Bachmann over him in a heartbeat?"

*SIGH*

I just addressed this, I DID NOT SAY THAT...

""I'd take Hillary in a heartbeat over [Rand Paul], Marco Rubio, Michelle Bachmann (if she were fool enough to run again), Jeb Bush, and just about any other contender out there."

I said I'd take Hillary OVER all those people.

Oh.

Well okay. Still, Rand Paul is nowhere near as bad as you seem to think he is.

Marco Rubio could gain some traction as a Republican moderate.

@ssorenn:

I see him as the "perfect" Vice-President candidate in an electoral sense (I obviously dislike him in a political sense.)

I think he could bring the semblance of broader base appeal and youth to a ticket with a more conservative and traditional (this IS the GOP, after all) candidate at the head.

Although I've never really seen any popular support for him in California in the Latino base (where you'd think he might be more popular) or otherwise...of all the candidates we just listed right now, here in the world of Aged 20-30 California voters, Hillary would be the most popular by far down here in So Cal, then Rand Paul from folks I've talked to, and everyone else far and away bites the dust.

"I'm of the school of thought that says the Constitution is a living, breathing document, rather than being an Antonin Scalia type, who views it as more dead and set in stone."

Another example of you caricaturing an opponent. The originalist view is that the Constitution means what the Framers understood it to mean when it was written, and that any change must come from actual amendments rather than the Supreme Court simply making a decision in a case.

That's not a "dead" constitution. One may say it's exactly the point of having a constitution; rules can't be altered just by the whims of people currently in power. If you want to change the Constitution, the AMEND it. Don't just give five Harvard or Yale law school graduates control over the nation's destiny. You may disagree (and many people far smarter than you do), but don't misrepresent the other side so egregiously.


"I think Rand Paul IS a caricature of himself, frankly, or at least of libertarian, Ron Paul-ite ideals. I cannot take that joker seriously..."

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are very different politicians. And why should we expect less? Do you share all of your father's political views? Again, your ignorance is showing.

I like how you just ignored my point on sentencing guidelines. What a boob you are, obiwanobiwan.

The 12th amendment virtually guarantees that we can never have a viable third party in this country. If there was an actual viable 3rd party candidate (when I say viable, not Ross Perot winning 20% of the vote, I mean actually carrying some states in the general election and winning some electoral college votes) then none of the 3 candidates would likely receive the 270 votes in the electoral college. The 12th amendment would then throw the election to the House where the states vote in bloc to elect the president. In order for a 3rd party candidate to actually win, you would first need to hold a number of seats in the House to ensure you could win the presidency in the House vote, assuming the people in the House vote along party lines.

Which is why the electoral college needs to go away

Electoral College has nothing to do with it, ultimately. It's all a result of first-past-the-post voting.

Please, just watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

ssorenn, voting is important. But voting for Pepsi vs. Coke when there's coffee, vodka, orange juice, etc etc, is a waste of time.

Invictus, I like to call Obamacare the Democratic version of Romneycare. Is it difficult to believe that Republicans wouldn't have gone along with something like that, if it wasn't being pushed by Obama? You're right about McCain and Iran, though, but I think that's more an issue of unstable personality than of political affiliation. I don't want to watch your video, although I'd read a transcript.

uclabb - the reason third parties don't win, especially at the local but also state level, is because people like you assume they can't win, so nobody votes for them. It's due to public perception as much as voting structure, although I agree the voting structure does discourage third parties. But it doesn't make them impossible.

Putin: On Hillary, I am pleasantly surprised to see that we sort of agree. I think Warren v. Paul is the only plausible slate that wouldn't have me throwing up, although a sane country wouldn't have much use for either of them.

Obi, your political opinions, which don't seem quite grounded in reality, are so terrible that I don't even know what to say. Hillary embodies almost everything that's wrong with how American politics works today.

Inv, I've watched the video... now I suggest you read the 12th amendment. There's nothing in a first-past-the-post voting system that says there can't be a viable 3rd party candidate win (perhaps you should look to recent governors in NY and CT). Over a long period of time, a first-past-the-post systems TENDS towards 2 parties, it doesn't ensure it. The 12th amendment guarantees (assuming reps vote along party lines) that a 3rd party candidate can't win unless they also have a large number of seats in the house.

Ssorenn, what do you think would be better than the electoral college, a straight majority vote??

We are already there, there are no longer 7 entrants to the election, sides have already been drawn. We need to changes , the inherent philosophy of why people vote for who they vote, and more people need to be proactive and actually vote.

"the reason third parties don't win, especially at the local but also state level, is because people like you assume they can't win, so nobody votes for them. It's due to public perception as much as voting structure, although I agree the voting structure does discourage third parties. But it doesn't make them impossible."

The voting structure drives public perception. That's the whole point.

@CK , if you want to break it down to coke v Pepsi fine, but you first say voting is important, and then contradict yourself that way.....every vote is important if you ever want change to come...you need a starting block...it might not happen in our life times but we will evolve.

"There's nothing in a first-past-the-post voting system that says there can't be a viable 3rd party candidate win (perhaps you should look to recent governors in NY and CT)."

Um, there's been no third party governor of New York recently.

Sure, under first-past-the-post a third party candidate who gets the most votes would win. And nothing in the system forbids that from happening if the circumstances are right. But everything about first-past-the-post says a third party candidate probably can't win. You're just ignoring unhelpful facts.

As for the Twelfth Amendment, you point about the election going to the House is a moot one since the presidential races in each state for the electoral votes are first-past-the-post. So those 51 races inevitably devolve to two-party contests. Meaning the issue never arises.

" We need to changes , the inherent philosophy of why people vote for who they vote, and more people need to be proactive and actually vote."

No. If you want more than two parties you need some other voting system. Nothing else is serious.

We are supposed to be a govt by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE. So, most popular should win. I think the electoral college keeps people from thinking their vote could count.
If I live in a blue state by high margins, and I'm red, why vote? Right?

That is a totally separate issue.

"She was the first to compare Putin to Hitler; and even suggested moderate military assistance to Kiev. "

Which utterly disqualifies her from being President IMO.