timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

they think I should die if I print a cartoon mocking them, their religion, and their god. Seems like freedom speech to me.

Love the new Hedbo cover, btw. Well done.

fixed for clarity.

Pretty sure that they don't think you should die if you just print any old cartoon.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

I don't get this.

There are consequences for doing this. Is it really worth having more people die over something so ridiculous as a cartoon?

fair question. I can only say that if i worked for a major newspaper, I'd support a decision to print it. freedom of speech isn't free.

Not sure if this was discussed in that other cesspool of a thread, but is this really a free speech issue?

No one is saying they can't legally print whatever they want. This is saying when you print something mocking someone else, that someone might get offended and punch back.

This issue seems more like (but not exactly like) when an annoying kid mocks the fat kid in class for being fat until the fat kid finally decides to punch the annoying kid in the face. Neither one is really in the 'right' in this case.

Then the annoying kid cries "freedom of speech."

Good point, and a decent analogy. I think what we are fighting for here is to not have people punching others in the face. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with insults. Don't buy the magazine. Protest outside their office. Do whatever you feel you must to make your voice heard, but do it within the parameters of a civilized society.

Perhaps we also disagree on just how offensive the Charlie Hebdo stuff is?

In your analogy, I think we can all agree the bully should not be making fun of the fat kid because he's fat. I'm not sure we all agree what Charlie Hebdo does is as patently wrong.

 

[timschochet]

I actually kind of agree with Joe T on this point, (which, given our political differences, is rare for me.) First off, let's be clear: it is not "brave" of other media outlets to reprint those cartoons at this point. What would be brave (and foolhardy) would be for them to publish cartoons of their own design that mocked Islam- which they have failed to do. And why should they? It is a fact that Muslims as a whole do not find humor in such satire, and that radical Muslims will resort to violence and terrorism in response. We cannot change that fact with immediate action; therefore what is the gain by attempting to do so.

If you were living 100 years ago in Alabama and you were a black man, you could not walk down the street holding the hand of a white girl. If you did, you'd most likely be savagely beaten, arrested, or even killed. That was the reality of the time. Now that reality might have outraged you, as well it should. But attempting defiant behavior in the name of freedom wouldn't change that reality in the slightest.

So no, I would not encourage periodicals to mock Islam as satire. It might make those of us in the west feel all defiant and self-righteous for a few moments, until the next act of terror happens. Then we get pissed off and are tempted to act as immorally as our enemies in retaliation. And the situation only gets worded. We gain nothing.

 

[joffer]

they think I should die if I print a cartoon mocking them, their religion, and their god. Seems like freedom speech to me.

Love the new Hedbo cover, btw. Well done.

fixed for clarity.

Pretty sure that they don't think you should die if you just print any old cartoon.

Ok. I still should have the freedom to do it without being killed.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I actually kind of agree with Joe T on this point, (which, given our political differences, is rare for me.) First off, let's be clear: it is not "brave" of other media outlets to reprint those cartoons at this point. What would be brave (and foolhardy) would be for them to publish cartoons of their own design that mocked Islam- which they have failed to do. And why should they? It is a fact that Muslims as a whole do not find humor in such satire, and that radical Muslims will resort to violence and terrorism in response. We cannot change that fact with immediate action; therefore what is the gain by attempting to do so.

If you were living 100 years ago in Alabama and you were a black man, you could not walk down the street holding the hand of a white girl. If you did, you'd most likely be savagely beaten, arrested, or even killed. That was the reality of the time. Now that reality might have outraged you, as well it should. But attempting defiant behavior in the name of freedom wouldn't change that reality in the slightest.

So no, I would not encourage periodicals to mock Islam as satire. It might make those of us in the west feel all defiant and self-righteous for a few moments, until the next act of terror happens. Then we get pissed off and are tempted to act as immorally as our enemies in retaliation. And the situation only gets worded. We gain nothing.

OK, two questions:

1. Should Islam receive special treatment? It's OK to mock other religions, but Islam is off limits, for no other reason than you might get killed for it.

2. If your answer to question #1 is "No", Islam should not be immune from satire, then what should be done about the current status of things whereby publishers are afraid to mock Islam for fear of their safety?

 

[timschochet]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

 

[joffer]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

Do you consider supporting death for apostates "radical"?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

This thread is the best thing thats happened in the FFA for a while. Kudos to all involved.

 

[CBusAlex]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

 

[timschochet]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

Do you consider supporting death for apostates "radical"?

you need to read my earlier post on this subject as to what, in our current society, defines a "moderate" Muslim. To answer your question, it's an extreme position, but the person who espouses it is not himself extreme or radical unless he is actively involved in attempting to enforce it.

 

[timschochet]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

Thats sounds really good and wise. But I'm skeptical of its practicality.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

This is a little bit different. Actually I think a better comparison is North Korea.

The problem is that with media, culture and commerce, our culture is invading their space. Now we have compounded this by allowing people to be naturalized or come into our society without sharing our democratic values.

Quite honestly modernity, technology, industrialization and democracy have been knocking on the door of the "muslim world" since oh about 1900, and the knocking is getting louder and louder and louder.

Really, we have been in their sphere, it continues, it will not abate, it will only increase.

 

[Joe T]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

New York Times gets ready to publish an op-ed calling for the investigation of Catholic priests for pedophilia.

The Archbishop of New York calls and demands it not be printed.

You're the editor of the NYT - what do you do?

 

[Joe T]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

New York Times gets ready to publish an op-ed calling for the investigation of Catholic priests for pedophilia.

The Archbishop of New York calls and demands it not be printed.

You're the editor of the NYT - what do you do?

I don't call my cartoonist and ask him to create a "political satire" cartoon around the op-ed showing the priests and children in compromising positions. I don't try to inflame the situation with a shock value cartoon and hide behind freedom of speech.

 

[joffer]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

If your belief is that I should be killed if I say something you don't like, it's not getting my respect. In fact, it's getting my ridicule.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

New York Times gets ready to publish an op-ed calling for the investigation of Catholic priests for pedophilia.

The Archbishop of New York calls and demands it not be printed.

You're the editor of the NYT - what do you do?

I don't call my cartoonist and ask him to create a "political satire" cartoon around the op-ed showing the priests and children in compromising positions. I don't try to inflame the situation with a shock value cartoon and hide behind freedom of speech.

So if Charlie had written an op-ed saying that Mohammed was an imaginary man with with an imaginary god and a bunch of made up rules to help him live his freak lifestyle and that he and all his followers are hypocrites, sans cartoon, that would be ok?

Or is that off limits too?

 

[CBusAlex]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

Thats sounds really good and wise. But I'm skeptical of its practicality.

Practically, I suppose it depends on whether there are more people willing and capable of using violence to suppress a type of speech (for whatever reason) who refrain from doing so because they don't believe it will be effective, or more people who will do it anyway because they think it's right and to hell with whether or not it works. Seems to me that the former group will likely be bigger, but I certainly don't have any data to back that up.

 

[Joe T]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

New York Times gets ready to publish an op-ed calling for the investigation of Catholic priests for pedophilia.

The Archbishop of New York calls and demands it not be printed.

You're the editor of the NYT - what do you do?

I don't call my cartoonist and ask him to create a "political satire" cartoon around the op-ed showing the priests and children in compromising positions. I don't try to inflame the situation with a shock value cartoon and hide behind freedom of speech.

So if Charlie had written an op-ed saying that Mohammed was an imaginary man with with an imaginary god and a bunch of made up rules to help him live his freak lifestyle and that he and all his followers are hypocrites, sans cartoon, that would be ok?

Or is that off limits too?

To be clear, nothing is off limits. You/Charlie can do anything you like.

There are ways of doing things that are respectful and there are ways of doing things that might not be as respectful. I think it is sometimes wiser to be a little bit more respectful to people.

 

[timschochet]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

Much as I agreed with you earlier, there is a problem with this statement as regards Islam. Yes, it applies to these latest cartoons. But don't forget that Salmon Rushdie was also under a sentence of death for The Satanic Verses, which did not make fun of Islam; it offered a serious literary criticism of it. Which leads me to believe that the problem here lies with Islam and it's intolerance to ANY criticism, rather than the disrespectful nature of these latest cartoons.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

New York Times gets ready to publish an op-ed calling for the investigation of Catholic priests for pedophilia.

The Archbishop of New York calls and demands it not be printed.

You're the editor of the NYT - what do you do?

I don't call my cartoonist and ask him to create a "political satire" cartoon around the op-ed showing the priests and children in compromising positions. I don't try to inflame the situation with a shock value cartoon and hide behind freedom of speech.

So if Charlie had written an op-ed saying that Mohammed was an imaginary man with with an imaginary god and a bunch of made up rules to help him live his freak lifestyle and that he and all his followers are hypocrites, sans cartoon, that would be ok?

Or is that off limits too?

To be clear, nothing is off limits. You/Charlie can do anything you like.

There are ways of doing things that are respectful and there are ways of doing things that might not be as respectful. I think it is sometimes wiser to be a little bit more respectful to people.

I will throw this out there.

Personally, I don't really expect CNN or Fox or Time or Newsweek or the WSJ to run cartoons of a naked guy bent over asking for spankings or that character bent over revealing his er starfish.

America has different sensibilities than Europe, you kind of see Page Six girls and all sorts of wild stuff in Euro publications.

I think Comedy Central & South Park already took this to the nth degree. They ran a parody pretending they would show Mohammed and then.... the big reveal.... it wasn't Mohammed at all, it was Santa Claus (hint hint, imaginary character)... and CC still cut it.

 

[timschochet]

OK, let's continue with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

OK, so we're talking about the Electoral College here. If I understand this correctly, the original intent was that each state would choose it's electors, and how they choose is not determined. As with the original way that Senators were appointed (which Yankee among others wants us to return to) I presume the state legislature in question could choose who received the electoral ballots? I'm also a bit confused by some of the language here: why vote for 2 people, one of whom is not a resident of the state? And how long did that go on?

Also, the way I'm reading this, the person getting the second amount of votes is the Vice-President. Now that is fascinating to consider: so in the last election, Mitt Romney would have been elected to vice-President? Imagine how that would have changed our political system if we had continued with that rule. It's very intriguing to consider, actually.

 

[timschochet]

The electoral college never occurred as an issue for me until 2000. In that year we were faced with the following fact (for the first time? I'm not sure): more people in this country voted for Al Gore than they did for George Bush. Yet, George Bush was elected due to the electoral college. Now this bothered a lot of people who felt that the outcome was undemocratic. They were right; it WAS undemocratic, but of course that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But even if you consider it to be a bad thing, it seems to me that for such a thing to happen, the popular voting and the electoral voting must be very close anyhow. I'm no expert at this, but I don't think you can come up with a mathematical formula where somebody wins the electoral college decisively, yet loses the popular vote decisively. That shouldn't ever happen, right? So long as it stays very close in such rare situations, I don't think anyone has to worry about the outcome being illegitimate (though some progressives treated it as exactly that).

 

[CowboysFromHell]

In the short run, refusing to publish images of Mohammed might result in fewer deaths. In the long run, allowing the threat of violence to be an effective form of censorship could well result in many more.

How so?

I guess I sort of get the free speech and censorship argument, but I also think there is a human decency argument here that some people are missing. What happened to having respect for other people and their beliefs? Sometimes when you mock people, make fun of people, degrade people, then there are consequences for those actions. "Hey, its free speech." Yes, that doesn't mean all human decency goes out the window.

If you don't mock people, etc. then there really is no issue to begin with.

If your belief is that I should be killed if I say something you don't like, it's not getting my respect. In fact, it's getting my ridicule.

Also, I think it's important to draw the distinction between criticizing people vs criticizing beliefs.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

Do you consider supporting death for apostates "radical"?

you need to read my earlier post on this subject as to what, in our current society, defines a "moderate" Muslim. To answer your question, it's an extreme position, but the person who espouses it is not himself extreme or radical unless he is actively involved in attempting to enforce it.

I disagree with the bolded, Tim. Are you saying it's ok to hold an abhorrent belief as long as you don't act on it? Let somebody else do your dirty work for you?

 

[timschochet]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

Do you consider supporting death for apostates "radical"?

you need to read my earlier post on this subject as to what, in our current society, defines a "moderate" Muslim. To answer your question, it's an extreme position, but the person who espouses it is not himself extreme or radical unless he is actively involved in attempting to enforce it.

I disagree with the bolded, Tim. Are you saying it's ok to hold an abhorrent belief as long as you don't act on it? Let somebody else do your dirty work for you?

Im not saying it's OK at all. I'm saying that, in Islam, those are the people that unfortunately we have to encourage, because the alternative is worse.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The electoral college never occurred as an issue for me until 2000. In that year we were faced with the following fact (for the first time? I'm not sure): more people in this country voted for Al Gore than they did for George Bush. Yet, George Bush was elected due to the electoral college. Now this bothered a lot of people who felt that the outcome was undemocratic. They were right; it WAS undemocratic, but of course that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But even if you consider it to be a bad thing, it seems to me that for such a thing to happen, the popular voting and the electoral voting must be very close anyhow. I'm no expert at this, but I don't think you can come up with a mathematical formula where somebody wins the electoral college decisively, yet loses the popular vote decisively. That shouldn't ever happen, right? So long as it stays very close in such rare situations, I don't think anyone has to worry about the outcome being illegitimate (though some progressives treated it as exactly that).

Once again, the federal government exists at the behest of 1. the People and 2. the States.

I love the electoral college, I hope it's around forever.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Good questions:

1. Islam, in a perfect world, should not receive special treatment. In our world, they still should not, but they do get it and that's OK with me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims living in the world. Of these, a tiny yet significant portion are radical enough to present a threat to our society. We cannot destroy this radical minority and any attempt to do so runs the risk of making them larger. Therefore, we have to, at times, treat the Muslim world differently.

It's like the Cold War. We stood by helpless, in 1956, when the Soviets invaded Budapest, sending tanks and killing thousands of innocent people. What were we going to do? Risk nuclear war for the principle of freedom? So we just let it happen, and that was the correct decision.

2. We don't have to dissuade those who attempt to deliberately offend Islam, but I don't believe in supporting them too much either.

Do you consider supporting death for apostates "radical"?

you need to read my earlier post on this subject as to what, in our current society, defines a "moderate" Muslim. To answer your question, it's an extreme position, but the person who espouses it is not himself extreme or radical unless he is actively involved in attempting to enforce it.

I disagree with the bolded, Tim. Are you saying it's ok to hold an abhorrent belief as long as you don't act on it? Let somebody else do your dirty work for you?

Im not saying it's OK at all. I'm saying that, in Islam, those are the people that unfortunately we have to encourage, because the alternative is worse.

And therein lies the problem. We have to support those folks vs saying their beliefs have no place in modern society. Sort of how our government has to constantly choose between maniacal dictators and corrupt regimes to keep the ones we really don't like from gaining too much power. The Middle East is a never ending conundrum of choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Excellent, excellent article on this topic of free speech. I was going to copy/paste some of the better parts, but the whole damn thing is so good...just read it.

Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended

 

[RCon]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

That would be a decent argument if we were having this discussion a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody alive today was "bait and switched." We were all just born into (or immigrated into) this weird historical anomaly. My impression is that people back then identified much more closely as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" than they did as "Americans" -- which made sense because the United States was just some new thing they hadn't lived with before. Today I don't think there's any comparison. Nationalism is way more of a personal identifier than state loyalty.

I don't know. Judging from the crowd at the Oregon/Ohio St. game last night, I'd say state loyalty is pretty damn important.

 

[timschochet]

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation,

This seems like the definition of antiquated. That was over 200 years ago.

nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

I'd like to hear more about what you think would happen here. Would Rhode Island would become its own country? Or would it join forces with Wyoming and the Dakotas to make some weird patchwork country? Neither of these scenarios seems likely to me.

That is a bait and switch tactic though. You entice people in, granting them equal power in one chamber of Congress while conceding power in the other, only to use your size advantage later to take away that balance. To me it was one of the many brilliant compromises which gave proper balance of power that we have slowly been taking away.

That would be a decent argument if we were having this discussion a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Nobody alive today was "bait and switched." We were all just born into (or immigrated into) this weird historical anomaly. My impression is that people back then identified much more closely as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" than they did as "Americans" -- which made sense because the United States was just some new thing they hadn't lived with before. Today I don't think there's any comparison. Nationalism is way more of a personal identifier than state loyalty.

I don't know. Judging from the crowd at the Oregon/Ohio St. game last night, I'd say state loyalty is pretty damn important.

That's school loyalty. Completely different animal. Guarantee you that Oregon State fans were rooting for the Buckeyes last night.

 

[timschochet]

Anybody like courtroom novels? Here are my favorite courtroom novels, in no particular order:

The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee

The Seven Minutes by Irving Wallace

The Man by Irving Wallace

A Time to Kill by John Grisham

The Rainmaker by John Grisham

Key Witness by JS Freedman

QB VII by Leon Uris

Protect and Defend by Richard North Patterson

Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson

Exile by Richard North Patterson

 

[The General]

Anybody like courtroom novels? Here are my favorite courtroom novels, in no particular order:

The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee

The Seven Minutes by Irving Wallace

The Man by Irving Wallace

A Time to Kill by John Grisham

The Rainmaker by John Grisham

Key Witness by JS Freedman

QB VII by Leon Uris

Protect and Defend by Richard North Patterson

Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson

Exile by Richard North Patterson

12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda

 

[jon_mx]

What is a yute?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Anybody like courtroom novels? Here are my favorite courtroom novels, in no particular order:

The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee

The Seven Minutes by Irving Wallace

The Man by Irving Wallace

A Time to Kill by John Grisham

The Rainmaker by John Grisham

Key Witness by JS Freedman

QB VII by Leon Uris

Protect and Defend by Richard North Patterson

Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson

Exile by Richard North Patterson

No. I hate courtroom novels. Refuse to read them. Having said that, some of these are pretty good.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Uris' QBVII is quite good.

I could never get into the Grisham stuff, I mean I can barely read a couple pages. Always seems like one big lawyer fantasy, not for lawyers but people who want to be lawyers. I do like what he's done for New Orleans, Memphis and Mississippi settings and movie making though.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Uris' QBVII is quite good.

I could never get into the Grisham stuff, I mean I can barely read a couple pages. Always seems like one big lawyer fantasy, not for lawyers but people who want to be lawyers.

Excellent synopsis of Grisham. It's lawyer porn. Frankly, our jobs just aren't that interesting in a made for TV type style. Sure, the courtroom arguments can be fun sometimes but the work we actually do would make a lot of people fall asleep.

 

[timschochet]

It's not supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be entertaining. The two Grisham books I listed feature big juicy courtroom trials. Most Grisham novels involve lawyers but don't actually have trials in them.

QB VII was based on a true story. A former German doctor in London sued Uris because he was described as a Nazi doctor at Auschwitz. It turned out that the description was correct.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

OK, let's continue with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

OK, so we're talking about the Electoral College here. If I understand this correctly, the original intent was that each state would choose it's electors, and how they choose is not determined. As with the original way that Senators were appointed (which Yankee among others wants us to return to) I presume the state legislature in question could choose who received the electoral ballots? I'm also a bit confused by some of the language here: why vote for 2 people, one of whom is not a resident of the state? And how long did that go on?

Also, the way I'm reading this, the person getting the second amount of votes is the Vice-President. Now that is fascinating to consider: so in the last election, Mitt Romney would have been elected to vice-President? Imagine how that would have changed our political system if we had continued with that rule. It's very intriguing to consider, actually.

Yes this is the creation of the electoral college. Since roughly the end of the civil war the states have had the electors chosen by popular vote similar to what we do now.

The system worked fine for Washington and then for Adams. It crashed itself in the 1803 election for Jefferson. The creation of what we know now as political parties created a system within the electoral college that the government couldn't handle with the same precision that it did with Washington and Adams. Jefferson and Aaron Burr ended up tied on the ballot and the House had to go through 36 ballots before Jefferson finally won, and only after Alexander Hamilton started working against Aaron Burr because he hated him so much. Those two, of course, settled their difference like men, and Hamilton was an idiot that day.

The problems that the Jefferson election caused led to the debate over the 12th Amendment. So now instead of just casting votes for President and then letting the second place get the VP slot, they made it so the electors had to vote specifically for a President and a Vice President. The state of residence restriction was set up so that no one state could control both offices and allow favorite sons to control the government as well to ensure that there would be some diversity in terms of state power in the Executive.

No Romney would not have been the VP because the 12th Amendment ends that specific practice. Because of the 12th we now have tickets where there is a clearly defined Presidential candidate and Vice Presidential candidate.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The electoral college never occurred as an issue for me until 2000. In that year we were faced with the following fact (for the first time? I'm not sure): more people in this country voted for Al Gore than they did for George Bush. Yet, George Bush was elected due to the electoral college. Now this bothered a lot of people who felt that the outcome was undemocratic. They were right; it WAS undemocratic, but of course that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But even if you consider it to be a bad thing, it seems to me that for such a thing to happen, the popular voting and the electoral voting must be very close anyhow. I'm no expert at this, but I don't think you can come up with a mathematical formula where somebody wins the electoral college decisively, yet loses the popular vote decisively. That shouldn't ever happen, right? So long as it stays very close in such rare situations, I don't think anyone has to worry about the outcome being illegitimate (though some progressives treated it as exactly that).

Wasn't the first time. It's happened 7 times in our history that the EC has become the central story in the election.

In 1800 we had the Jefferson Burr election. They torched their opposition so they were going to be the President and Vice President. The problem was who was who. The House went through 36 ballots before Jefferson ultimately got the top spot. The political games of the Federalists played a role in the confusion because knowing they were going to lose the started trying to deny Jefferson the top - and everyone knew that when they were voting Jefferson was the top of the ticket guy for the most part. Alexander Hamilton finally pulled off some backroom stuff with his Federalists and gave the final ballot to Jefferson. Burr never forgave Hamilton for that and other slights and eventually challenged him to a duel that ended with Hamilton being killed and destroying Burr's career and reputation. The result of the chaos of 1800 led to the 12th Amendment.

In 1824 Andrew Jackson beat John Quincy Adams by 30,00 votes. But since 4 men actually got EC votes there was no majority to give Jackson the win. Henry Clay, who was 4th in the EC, got dropped out of the process by the House when the election was thrown to them. Clay and Adams came up with the deal where Adams would get Clay's support and Clay would get, ultimately, the Secretary of State position which at the time was seen as the clear step anyone had to take before being President. With Clay's support Adams finally won the election and Jackson was furious. This is the "corrupt bargain" that Jackson used to win the next election. You can determine for yourself if this was a problem that the EC created or not. Jackson clearly wasn't supported by the majority of the country or he would have won. He lost votes to Clay and William Crawford and couldn't condense the support from those factions. For a tangential debate - put Jackson in a parlimentary system that so many people on this board debate for - the need to bring different factions together to get a majority in leadership. Jackson couldn't do that but Adams could. Adams was the better party leader and better politician, and there was some doubt in many circles that Jackson would be a good President. This specific election is very much our version of a parlimentary system and we worked without our system to get a Constitutional outcome. Adams became President. For 4 years. Then Jackson destroyed him in the next election becoming the hero of the people against the old fashioned traditional power party politics that he accused Adams of representing.

Also in 1824 not all the states had yet held elections for the electors. Some were still having them appointed by the state legislature. Another unique little part of that election.

In 1836, Martin Van Buren won both the popular and electoral college but the Whig party tried to circumvent the popular vote and focus on the EC by running several candidates in different regions with the hopes that Van Buren wouldn't be able to get a majority of the EC and have the vote thrown to the House where the Whigs had a majority. It didn't work obviously. The idea of trying to end run the system by doing something like that never happened again. The EC held its place and the system flourished.

In 1872 - just a fun year - Grant beat Horace Greeley in a landslide, but Greeley did get some EC votes. The problem was that Greeley died in between the casting of the votes and the official counting of the votes, so there was no precedent for what to do with his votes. The EC eventually split his votes around some people though it didn't matter as Grant had won anyway.

In 1876 we had the most difficult election in our history up until 2000. Sam Tilden beat Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote by about 300,000 votes. The Republicans supprting Hayes came up with a plan to contest the EC votes of several states before they were counted. (Sound familiar?) I had to look it up but there were 20 contested EC votes. In order to win the Presidency Tilden only needed 1 and Hayes needed all 20. Since there had never been anything like this happen with the contest of so many EC Votes and the election hanging in the balance, the parties agreed to setup a bipartisan commision to review the EC Votes - the 19th century version of the hanging chads review. The Commission had 5 Congressmen, 5 Senators and 5 Justices of the Supreme Court. It was supposed to be a 7/7 party split with one "impartial" member. They were naive of course. The independent guy actually won election to the Senate before the commission started so he removed himself and with the House and Senate now controlled by the Republicans and within the rules that the parties set up for the commission, the republicans appointed the 15th member from their ranks giving them a majority on the commission. Every vote on each contested EC vote went along party lines 8-7. Hayes got all 20 votes. Hayes won the Presidency.

The Democrats threatened to fillibuster the Senate forever and shut down the government permanently as a result and there were weeks of backroom meetings to try to come up with a way to make Hayes President and keep the Democrats happy. The deal that came up with was very much a sell your soul deal - the Democrats agreed to not stand in the way of Hayes and Hayes agreed to remove all federal troops from the south thereby ending Reconstruction and throwing into termoil race relations that came to a head in the 1960's. Hayes also agreed to not execute the laws that were enacted to give blacks equal voting rights, and with that came everything that we have discussed here about poll taxes and whatnot in the south during the early part of the 20th century. Here the EC did it's job and the House did theirs, but in doing their job they played pretty typical political games with each other. This was the most dangerous election the EC ever became a highlight part of until 2000.

In 1888, Ben Harrison lost the popular vote to President Cleveland by a margin of less than 1%. But in doing that, Harrison actually won small majorities in certain more important states and got blown out in ones that he wasn't going to win anyway. The result of that gameplan was that he actually won the majority of the EC without it even going to the House. His political handlers were geniuses. Cleveland of course came back the next election and beat Hayes.

And then we have 2000. I'm not reviewing that. Gore won the popular vote by less than a margin that Cleveland did over Harrison in 1888 and this time, instead o like 1872 when they worked together and formed a commission every level of government was thrown into chaos, focused on Florida and stupid people arguing that they didn't understand their ballot. Of course, my personal argument there is that if you can't understand the ballot I don't want you voting for any elective office, but I wasn't on the Supreme Court to make that argument when the time came - although Scalia had to be thinking that. The 2000 crisis ended the way we all know it ended. And Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for finally ending it and not keeping it going the way many wanted. He doesn't get enough respect for that. Though from a purely political karma point of view - he lost his home state where he was known the best to people. He wins his home state and none of this was an issue. So.... you know...

So, in the history of our elections for President. 44 different elections over 250 years there have been exactly 4 times where the popular vote and the EC didn't match and a 5th time with Jefferson and Burr where that wasn't even the issue and the Constitution was amended after that one anyway. 4 out of 44. 9% of the time the EC and popular vote haven't matched up. And in each of those times the difference in popular vote was right around or less than 1% of the total popular vote - meaning within any standard measure of a margin of error. So statistically speaking solely there has never been a problem with the EC at all. But we don't look at it that way. And you can make the argument that in those 4 elections the resulting fights had very little to do with what the EC was originally reated for anyway and that was to temper the popular vote against the republican nature of the government. Instead, what happens is political parties take to their mastheads and fight for power, not republicanism in the form the Constitution demands.

The argument against the EC in this context only is easy to state though - if the end result of the system is that statistically speaking the popular vote wins anyway, why do we need the EC? It's functionaly obsolete. It's just one more point where power brokers can screw up the system and it's a solution without a problem. In that, the argument is functionally correct. It really is in that respect a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Save for the fact that the President is not a democratically elected office, its a republican office. Theory over substance. Jefferson over Adams. The one and probably only time I fall on the Jeffersonian line of the argument that the theory is more important in this case. But when you look at actual numbers and history the EC is really almost functionally useless.

But then if you sit down and look at the Jackson Adams election you see why it is there. Even though Jackson won the popular vote over Adams, the fact remains that he didn't enjoy the support of the majority of the popular vote as it was recorded becaue of two other people running. In that respect, the EC did a great job of creating a result that we want - if there is no majority then the House needs to mediate the issue and there is a level of oversight from the simple aspect of the guy with the most votes winning because the most votes might not represent the majority. Then we debate the parlimentary aspect of that result. Rebuttal to that is we are focusing, then, on the benefits of a system that showed it's one and only really truly useful purpose almost 200 years ago. It's a fun argument.

As to your last point - we need focus on that for a minute. You say - correctly by the way - that there is no mathematical formula for a candidate to overwhelmingly win the popular vote and then overwhelming lose the electoral vote. This is true. There is no way possible - at the moment. But there is a way. And that is because of the states. The EC is based on the states and their seats in Congress. California has 55 EC votes. New York has 29. Texas has 38, Florida has 29, Illnois has 20, Ohio has 18 and Pennsylvania has 20. Those are, for all intents and purposes our major city population centers as well - meaning that the populations of those states dwarf most of the others. In total those 7 states control 209 Electoral College votes. 270 is the number you need to hit. Look at the population numbers:

California - 39 million

Texas - 26 million

Florida - 19 million

New York - 19 million

Illinois - 12 million

Pennsylvania - 12 million

Ohio - 12 million

With 318 million people roughly, those states represent 139 million people. The other states combined have 179 million. 7 states make up almost 44% of our population. Given voting trends and legal requirements not every one of those people can or will vote obviously. There were about 125 million votes cast for President in 2012. You can easily come up with a scenario where Candidate A wins those 7 states by an overwhelming majority of votes - like 3 or 4 to 1 but loses all the other states closely - say with 5%. With only 40% of the people voting, for the President, you get 56 million votes out of those 7 states. Give someon 75 % of those votes or 42 million votes and you only need about another 20 million votes from the rest of the states to get a "clear majorty" of the popular vote. That's only 11% of the other states. Extrapolate that out. A candidate could get 75% of the vote in the 7 big states and only 11% of the votes in the other 43 states and get to a popular vote total that equals what Obama got in 2012 - and that candidate would lose the EC by a count of 329 to 209 - which is a landslide in the EC. That same candidate could get 75 % of the big 7 and 48% of the other 43, dwarf his opponent in the popular the likes of which a Madden game has never seen and still loose the EC by a landslide.

All this to say that the vision of the EC was to ensure that the minority was not destroyed by the majority. Sure, the popular vote would be overwhelming in that case (and look, my number might be off a little I don't care you see where I am going for the point) Do we want 7 states to control this country - and it be those 7 states? Maybe. Maybe not. But if those 7 states control the office of the President without all the other theoretical stuff we have talked about, what happens is that in a nutshell, because of the economies of scale, you have 7 major cities running the nation and with it you destroy the fabric of the republic. You could certainly argue they already do this, but they don't. Who are some of the most powerful people in Senate right now? Mitch McConnell? He's from Kansas. Harry Ried is from Nevada. Heck, Joe Biden is from Delaware. John Thune is from a fricken Dakota. But in the House the leadership is mainly from the big 7 states. We see the difference in how the chambers have internal leadership. In the popular branch, the big 7 have the most power. But in the other branch that is a mess structuraly they still have the balance of different regions from the big 7 in leadership positions. I think this is a big deal. Don't we want a system where the Senate Majority leader can be from Kansas? Why does he always have to come from California or New York? There is a hell of alot of country in between those states.

tl;dr - the EC works, 2000 wasn't the only problem, and tim's hatred of a Delaware Senator doesn't think through the true consequences.

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Long, great analysis and history there. Your description of 1876 makes 2000 look pretty smooth by comparison.

Your point about the 7 states reminded me of a proposal by liberals after 2000: I think it was that those same 7 states should simply commit themselves to applying all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. That would have the effect of eradicating the electoral college. Putting aside the merits of such an idea, would it even be constitutional?

 

[timschochet]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

I honestly don't want to be in a union with California where there isn't some balancing and check. We have almost nothing in common with Cali, I love the place but I want nothing to do with their politics, and they've brought the sense of helter skelter fiscal insanity to Congress, lord only knows how much spending is generated out of the 47-large Cali delegation and Pelosi specifically.

It's not just Cali, we want nothing to do with MS or Arkansas.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Wow. Long, great analysis and history there. Your description of 1876 makes 2000 look pretty smooth by comparison.

Your point about the 7 states reminded me of a proposal by liberals after 2000: I think it was that those same 7 states should simply commit themselves to applying all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. That would have the effect of eradicating the electoral college. Putting aside the merits of such an idea, would it even be constitutional?

It likely would be. The Constitution empowers the states to "elect" the electoral college as they deem fit. So the national popular vote movement has consitutional backing. If Delaware wanted to award their EC votes to whomever got the national total vote they could.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

The primary system is not constitutional though. California can move their primary anywhere they want. The failure of California to do that is not an attack on the EC system - which also has literally nothing to do with the primary election system anyway. You are attacking the Yankees because the New York Rangers didn't win the cup. You aren't even in the same sport.

I can't do anything about time zones but California can, again change their polling times. As for California not getting their due - you are all collectively selfish narcissists who think just because your state is big you should be in power. That specific argument pretty much proves you shouldn't be.

 

[Sinn Fein]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

Just a wild guess here - but I would assume that Californians have a disproportionate say in the election process via campaign contributions to both parties that shape the landscape far more than primaries in Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

[timschochet]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

Just a wild guess here - but I would assume that Californians have a disproportionate say in the election process via campaign contributions to both parties that shape the landscape far more than primaries in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of course. They all come here for our money (especially the Democrats). But that's not ME. That's a few guys in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley.

 

[timschochet]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

The primary system is not constitutional though. California can move their primary anywhere they want. The failure of California to do that is not an attack on the EC system - which also has literally nothing to do with the primary election system anyway. You are attacking the Yankees because the New York Rangers didn't win the cup. You aren't even in the same sport.

I can't do anything about time zones but California can, again change their polling times. As for California not getting their due - you are all collectively selfish narcissists who think just because your state is big you should be in power. That specific argument pretty much proves you shouldn't be.

I think about this hundreds of times each day as I stare in the mirror, and you are wrong. I am not selfish nor a narcissist.

 

[Sinn Fein]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

Just a wild guess here - but I would assume that Californians have a disproportionate say in the election process via campaign contributions to both parties that shape the landscape far more than primaries in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of course. They all come here for our money (especially the Democrats). But that's not ME. That's a few guys in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley.

This is about money - you, the regular joe individual do not count as much as wealthy investor guy - the Supreme Court has said as much.

 

[timschochet]

And btw, I don't hate a Delaware senator; I'm just a little miffed that my state of California, the richest and most populous state in the union, doesn't seem to have the input it deserves. This is especially true when it comes to Presidential elections. We have no say whatsoever in who the nominees will be- they are decided long before the California primary. That primary used to be a really big deal; now it's an afterthought. The night of the actual election, despite the fact that we have the most electoral votes, we don't mean squat. More often than not the election has been called well before our polls have closed. (The 3 hour difference here, at a time in our history when exit polling offers immediate results from the media, makes the entire west coast seem irrelevant IMO.)

I have talked about this with conservative Californians and liberal Californians and on this issue nearly everyone agrees: we don't get our due.

I honestly don't want to be in a union with California where there isn't some balancing and check. We have almost nothing in common with Cali, I love the place but I want nothing to do with their politics, and they've brought the sense of helter skelter fiscal insanity to Congress, lord only knows how much spending is generated out of the 47-large Cali delegation and Pelosi specifically.

It's not just Cali, we want nothing to do with MS or Arkansas.

Right now the imbalance favors you.