11/4/2012 7:58 PM
Send them packing.  Just watched a piece on 60m on the gridlock in Washington.

**** all of them.   Vote the incumbents out.   Bring in a new batch. 

And, if America isn't what you think it should, vote the next group of SOBs out. 
11/4/2012 8:02 PM
I have been saying in Teh Pit for 3 years now.... and in 2014 we should vote all of the incumbents out again.
11/4/2012 8:40 PM
Shouldnt we always go on a case by case basis? Otherwise we will get rid of good people and replace them with bad more often than replacing bad with good.
11/4/2012 9:04 PM
I am with Mike....I would rather take my chances with a random drawing of American citizens every Congress. Special interests are destroying the country. The only interest to serve is the interest of the American people...and corporations are not people, despite what anyone may claim.
11/4/2012 9:32 PM
it's the long-standing institutions who need to go, like reid, boehner, and pelosi.

there are so many people in congress who have become so entrenched that they no longer have any fear of losing an election, and thus do whatever the hell they want despite whatever public opinion may be.

term limits need to be enacted. 4 terms for house, 2 for senate. if you can't get it done in 8 or 12 years, you can't get it done. unfortunately, guess who decides whether there should be term limits?

public office should be a service, not a career.
11/5/2012 8:49 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/4/2012 8:40:00 PM (view original):
Shouldnt we always go on a case by case basis? Otherwise we will get rid of good people and replace them with bad more often than replacing bad with good.
Pretty sure this would result in what we have now.   Voting along party lines.   "My guy isn't so bad but the guys across the aisle are horrible!"

It's just time for America to make changes in the political system.    Blue states are almost always blue states and red states are almost always red states.  People don't even think when they vote.
11/5/2012 9:33 AM
We need to change the electoral college system as well.  It's outdated.  Going to a straight popular vote, while it seems logical, just doesn't seem practical in a country of over 300 million people, particularly in a close popular vote election (2000 for example, and what looks to be this year).

Having a "winner take all" electoral college system is just plain stupid in 2012.  Having an election determined by a handful of votes in one state, as what we saw in 2000, is dumb.  It just is.

My proposal: electoral college voting by congressional districts.  436 electoral votes (one for each district, and one for Washington D.C.).  You win a congressional district, you get their electoral vote.  219 votes wins you the election.  Ties would be resolved as they are now.
11/5/2012 11:50 AM
The electoral college system will NEVER go away. It is established by the constitution, meaning a constitutional amendment is necessary to make it go away. Two thirds of states must approve any amendment. Every small state (population wise) gets at least three electoral votes, which means most of them are over represented compared to the number of people they contain. There are enough of those states who are over represented compared with a popular vote system that they will not vote to join a popular vote system and give their voters less power by comparison that the required two thirds to change the system will NEVER be achieved. So unless you can convince several states to give their voters LESS elective power than they already have, it won't happen.

11/5/2012 11:53 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 9:33:00 AM (view original):
We need to change the electoral college system as well.  It's outdated.  Going to a straight popular vote, while it seems logical, just doesn't seem practical in a country of over 300 million people, particularly in a close popular vote election (2000 for example, and what looks to be this year).

Having a "winner take all" electoral college system is just plain stupid in 2012.  Having an election determined by a handful of votes in one state, as what we saw in 2000, is dumb.  It just is.

My proposal: electoral college voting by congressional districts.  436 electoral votes (one for each district, and one for Washington D.C.).  You win a congressional district, you get their electoral vote.  219 votes wins you the election.  Ties would be resolved as they are now.
As if gerrymandering isn't a big enough problem already.
11/5/2012 11:53 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 9:33:00 AM (view original):
We need to change the electoral college system as well.  It's outdated.  Going to a straight popular vote, while it seems logical, just doesn't seem practical in a country of over 300 million people, particularly in a close popular vote election (2000 for example, and what looks to be this year).

Having a "winner take all" electoral college system is just plain stupid in 2012.  Having an election determined by a handful of votes in one state, as what we saw in 2000, is dumb.  It just is.

My proposal: electoral college voting by congressional districts.  436 electoral votes (one for each district, and one for Washington D.C.).  You win a congressional district, you get their electoral vote.  219 votes wins you the election.  Ties would be resolved as they are now.
I'm all for reforming the electoral system but congressional districts are so gerrymandered that it might not be the solution you're looking for. A proportional state electoral system may be better - e.g., a state with 10 electoral votes goes 60% for one candidate and 40% for the other, hands out 6 and 4 electoral votes respectively.

In that system, Romney would have a real chance tomorrow. As it is, he's a heavy underdog.
11/5/2012 11:58 AM
Romney should be a heavy underdog. He lies and flip flops his opinion every other day. I don't understand how anyone can trust someone like that.
11/5/2012 12:10 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 11/5/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 9:33:00 AM (view original):
We need to change the electoral college system as well.  It's outdated.  Going to a straight popular vote, while it seems logical, just doesn't seem practical in a country of over 300 million people, particularly in a close popular vote election (2000 for example, and what looks to be this year).

Having a "winner take all" electoral college system is just plain stupid in 2012.  Having an election determined by a handful of votes in one state, as what we saw in 2000, is dumb.  It just is.

My proposal: electoral college voting by congressional districts.  436 electoral votes (one for each district, and one for Washington D.C.).  You win a congressional district, you get their electoral vote.  219 votes wins you the election.  Ties would be resolved as they are now.
As if gerrymandering isn't a big enough problem already.
I don't see how this makes gerrymandering wore than it already is.  One can argue that a party having control of the House is just as important (if not more) than having a party's candidate sitting in the Oval Office.
11/5/2012 12:13 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 11/5/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 9:33:00 AM (view original):
We need to change the electoral college system as well.  It's outdated.  Going to a straight popular vote, while it seems logical, just doesn't seem practical in a country of over 300 million people, particularly in a close popular vote election (2000 for example, and what looks to be this year).

Having a "winner take all" electoral college system is just plain stupid in 2012.  Having an election determined by a handful of votes in one state, as what we saw in 2000, is dumb.  It just is.

My proposal: electoral college voting by congressional districts.  436 electoral votes (one for each district, and one for Washington D.C.).  You win a congressional district, you get their electoral vote.  219 votes wins you the election.  Ties would be resolved as they are now.
As if gerrymandering isn't a big enough problem already.
I don't see how this makes gerrymandering wore than it already is.  One can argue that a party having control of the House is just as important (if not more) than having a party's candidate sitting in the Oval Office.
It extends the problem in the House to the Oval Office. It isn't either/or
11/5/2012 12:53 PM
Posted by bistiza on 11/5/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Romney should be a heavy underdog. He lies and flip flops his opinion every other day. I don't understand how anyone can trust someone like that.
What you think he should be (and I'm not a Romney fan at all) and what he is are two entirely different things.

It's beyond me how Rick Santorum ever received more than two votes for office (his and his wife's) but there is no minimum IQ required to vote.

Romney is a slight underdog for the popular vote. He is a heavy underdog for the electoral vote.
11/5/2012 1:52 PM
Posted by sinverguenza on 11/4/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):
it's the long-standing institutions who need to go, like reid, boehner, and pelosi.

there are so many people in congress who have become so entrenched that they no longer have any fear of losing an election, and thus do whatever the hell they want despite whatever public opinion may be.

term limits need to be enacted. 4 terms for house, 2 for senate. if you can't get it done in 8 or 12 years, you can't get it done. unfortunately, guess who decides whether there should be term limits?

public office should be a service, not a career.
of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.